CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA

SURVEY 2003

Prepared by

IFES This publication was made possible through support provided by the DSRO/USAID/ Armenia, E&E, U.S. Agency for International Development, under the terms of Grant No. 111-A-00-00-00168-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The reprinting right of this publications is exclusively reserved for IFES.

For further information, please contact IFES-Armenia Head Offi ce:

Alex Manukian 9, 5th Floor Yerevan 375070 Republic of Armenia Tel: (374-1) 51 20 51, Fax: (374-1) 51 20 15 E-mail: [email protected]

●●● www.ifes.am ●●●

© 2004 IFES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 5

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7

III. POLITICAL INTEREST AND INFORMATION ...... 11

IV. ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL EFFICACY ...... 15

V. CIVIC ACTIVISM AND ATTITUDES ...... 19

VI. YOUTH ...... 23

VII. WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE ...... 27

VIII. JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND CORRUPTION ...... 31

IX. CONCLUSION ...... 33

X. APPENDICES ...... 35

APPENDIX 1. Methodological Summary ...... 35

APPENDIX 2. Topline Data ...... 37

APPENDIX 3. Demographic Data ...... 67

APPENDIX 4. IFES Activities in Armenia ...... 69

INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION

The IFES Citizens’ Awareness and Participation in Armenia (CAPA) survey was conducted between 30 August and 9 September, 2003. This is the third survey conducted by IFES; the fi rst one was fi elded in June, 2001 and the second in September, 2002. In total, 1,650 respondents were interviewed for the survey. In the regions (marzes) where IFES is currently undertaking programming, a more than proportional number of interviews were conducted. However, the fi nal data in this report has been weighted to be representative of the Armenian population by region, urban/rural centers, and gender. The margin of error for a sample of this size is plus or minus 2.4%.

IFES conducts annual public opinion surveys to provide meaningful and unbiased information to the citizens of Armenia and to evaluate and monitor programming for the CAPA project. Using the surveys as channels for maintaining dialogue, IFES widely distributes survey fi ndings to the Armenian public, including community groups, NGOs, government bodies and mass media. Surveys also identify issues and policies with broad-based support that can lead to opportunities for building issue-based or regionally based coalitions for implementing policy change. In addition, IFES uses survey results for programmatic evaluation and development. Based on survey data, programs can be refocused when needed to refl ect the level of citizen involvement, sources of information, and specifi c reasons, if any, for variations in the level of participation from year to year. Survey data is also used to defi ne local issues for publication development, as discussion points with citizen groups, and as a tool to increase citizen advocacy skills.

The survey report is divided into ten sections with a conclusion and appendices. Section I is an introduction to the report, while Section II summarizes the 2003 survey’s important fi ndings. Section III examines Armenians’ familiarity with and interest in political activities and government budgeting. Section IV analyzes Armenians’ participation in and sentiments towards the 2002 and 2003 elections as well as the implications for democracy in Armenia. Section V explains civic knowledge, attitudes towards participation in civic activities, and the interaction between public offi cials and their constituents. Section VI focuses on the political and civic attitudes of Armenian youth. Section VII gauges perceptions of women in society and public views on women’s involvement in politics while Section VIII describes opinions on the fairness of Armenia’s judicial system. Section IX provides a conclusion of the survey fi ndings while relating them to IFES’ CAPA project developments. Section X includes the appendices for the report. Appendices 1 and 2 describe the survey’s methodology and present the 2003 topline data. Appendix 3 contains selected demographic data. Lastly, Appendix 4 is a description of IFES activities in Armenia.

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY government activity has implications for awareness of and involvement in socio- political affairs. Those interested in politics Keeping in line with the methodology of the are more likely to have more information on 2001 and 2002 surveys, the 2003 survey aims political affairs, watch coverage of the National to gauge citizens’ attitudes and opinions within Assembly, be more likely to be involved in the framework of the following questions: socio-political activities other that voting, and are more likely to engage local offi cials 1. What is the level of interest and on important issues. Because men are more knowledge among Armenians about likely to be interested in politics than women, politics in general and politics on the they are also more likely, by extension, to be local level? socio-politically active than women. 2. Has the recent election process One reason for the decline in interest in the impacted Armenian’s political and voting activities of local government is the decline in effi cacy? the level of information about these activities. The percentage of Armenians who are at least 3. What is the level of citizen participation somewhat knowledgeable about the activities in Armenia and of citizen interaction of local government has fallen from 39% in with government offi cials? the 2001 survey to 31% in this year’s survey. Even fewer Armenians (8%) have information 4. What are the attitudes of young Arme- about their local community’s budget. The nians about politics, civic participation, lack of information on local budgets is women’s issues, corruption, and their especially important because most Armenians roles and responsibilities as citizens? would like their local offi cials to decide how the community budget should be used. 5. What are the attitudes towards women Without information on how local offi cials are in Armenia and their role in society and using the budget, citizen monitoring of local the decision-making process? government activity is curtailed to a large extent. 6. How do Armenians feel about the integrity of the judicial system and the Despite the relatively low levels of political state of corruption in their country? interest and information, Armenians are generally knowledgeable about the day-to- Key fi ndings of the survey address these day responsibilities of various institutions. questions and highlight the progress A majority of Armenians can identify the Armenia has made since the 2002 survey as institutions they would contact for help in a transparent, responsive, and democratic fi xing holes in neighborhood streets, for help state. with the telephone service, for the collection of trash, for problems with drinking water POLITICAL INTEREST AND KNOWLEDGE at home, and for putting their names on the voter lists. In contrast to the positive change in political interest and information levels experienced ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL EFFICACY between the 2001 and 2003 IFES surveys in Armenia, the 2003 survey shows a decline Voting is one of the few ways that Armenian in both interest in and information about citizens have taken part in the short history politics since the 2002 survey. Interest in of the democratic process in Armenia. The politics has declined from 58% of Armenians generally high regard with which voting is in 2002 to 50% in this survey. Even fewer viewed may be one reason why a far higher Armenians (36%) are interested in the percentage of Armenians report voting in activities of local government than in general the 2003 presidential and parliamentary political events. However, interest in politics elections (more than 80% for each of these and local government activities is generally elections) than the percentage indicated by higher among men than among women. the offi cial turnout percentages. There are some methodological considerations which The lack of interest in politics and local

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 7 may also play a part in the disparity in turnout believe in the possibility of ordinary citizens percentages between the offi cial fi gures having infl uence on the political process than and the IFES survey. (See Voting in 2002- those who do not think the 2003 elections 2003 section on pg. 15 for an explanations were fair. of these considerations.) The data in this survey reveals that the results of the 2003 The survey also indicates that nearly a elections have led to a decline in confi dence quarter of voters in Armenia went to the polls in a functioning democracy in Armenia. This in parliamentary and presidential elections is particularly true for the role of elections in with an unsatisfactory level of information the democratization process in the country. about the election process, while more than Sixty percent of Armenians do not agree that two-thirds were only ‘somewhat informed’. the 2003 elections show that Armenia is on a As for organizations responsible for providing path toward a full democracy, while only 28% information on the voting process, more agree with this assessment. people name political parties (37%) than the government (21%). The belief that the 2003 elections do not necessarily indicate a path toward democracy CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND ATTITUDES is rooted in widespread perception that the parliamentary and presidential elections While most Armenians regularly discuss were fundamentally unfair. In total, 75% of national and local political developments with Armenians believe the 2003 parliamentary acquaintances (70% and 57%, respectively), elections were not fair, while 74% have the there is far less participation in formal socio- same opinion of the presidential elections. political activities. Close to three-quarters Among those who think the parliamentary or more of Armenians have never attended a and presidential elections were unfair, more community council meeting in the past year, than two-thirds disagree that these elections signed a petition, or discussed their local show that Armenia is on a path toward full community’s budget with acquaintances. democracy. By contrast, close to two-thirds The lack of formal socio-political participation of those who think that the presidential and extends to community issues, with only 26% parliamentary elections were fair also believe saying they have taken steps to address that the elections show that Armenia is on a important issues in their community. path toward full democracy. The survey data also shows a moderate level The integrity of the election process also of interaction between local offi cials and impacts Armenians’ political and voting their constituents, with no increase in these effi cacy, the belief that ordinary citizens can interactions since the 2002 survey. Nearly infl uence government. a quarter of all Armenians have contacted elected offi cials to help with an issue or Armenians are generally not likely to take problem, and the majority of these people part in many socio-political activities besides have received a response from the elected voting. In fact, a third of all Armenians say offi cial and been satisfi ed with the response. that there is no way to infl uence the actions Armenians are less likely to contact appointed of government offi cials besides voting. A offi cials (10%) but among those that have further 13% lists illegitimate actions such as contacted appointed offi cials, the levels of bribery and rebellion as ways to infl uence the response and satisfaction with response are government. similar to those reported for elected offi cials. Most Armenians believe that ordinary citizens Despite the generally positive experience have little or no infl uence on the way things of those that contact elected or appointed are run in Armenia, and that voting does offi cials, most Armenians say they would not not provide citizens infl uence over decision- contact any appointed offi cial for help, while making in Armenia. Political effi cacy, as four in ten say they would not contact elected measured by opinions on these two issues, offi cials. is directly tied to perceptions of the integrity of the electoral process in Armenia. Those The lack of contact of Armenian citizens who think the parliamentary and presidential with public offi cials stems largely from the elections of 2003 were fair are more likely to

8 IFES SURVEY 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY uncertainty that approaching these offi cials important local issues, compared to 28% of would result in positive results. Among those Armenians 26 and above. Youth are also far who have not contacted elected and appointed less likely than older adults to have contacted offi cials, the most cited reason is that it would an elected offi cial for help in resolving an be unproductive to approach public offi cials issue or concern. To be fair, youth are more about community issues. Similarly, 41% of likely than older adults to say they have not Armenians say that addressing community contacted elected offi cials because there was issues by themselves would also not result no need for them to do so. Youth are also in a positive outcome. This percentage less likely to be interested in proceedings has increased signifi cantly since the 2002 of the National Assembly as they are far survey (26%), indicating greater reluctance more likely to have never watched television on the part of Armenians to get involved in coverage of these proceedings (42%) than community issues. older adults (25%).

The lack of citizen initiative to approach local In terms of the elections, youth in Armenia offi cials is replicated by a lack of initiative have shown similar voter turnouts to those on the part of public offi cials. Only 15% 26 and above in the 2003 parliamentary of Armenians have been approached by elections and both rounds of the presidential local governments or offi cials to voice their election. Furthermore, they are as likely as opinion on issues facing their community. older Armenians to share concerns over the Public hearings, questionnaires, and advisory integrity of the elections. Fifty-fi ve percent of groups are the tools used by local offi cials to youth and 60% of those 26 and older disagree gather public opinion on issues. that the elections show progress towards full democracy in Armenia. One sector that may occupy some of the public space currently not occupied Young women are less likely to have voted by local offi cials in Armenia is the NGO in the 2003 elections than young men. For sector. NGOs, while not universally known example, 87% of young men voted in the by Armenians, are positively evaluated by parliamentary election, compared to only those who know of these organizations or 70% of young women. Furthermore, young come into contact with them. In all, 26% of men are more likely to hold conservative Armenians can name an NGO that is active attitudes towards the role of women in society in Armenia. These Armenians have learned than men 26 and over. However, gender of NGOs primarily through mass media or gaps in measuring the level of interest and through acquaintances. Fifty-nine percent information on government activities are of those who know of NGOs think that these more pronounced among older Armenians, organizations are essential or necessary and insignifi cant among youth. for Armenia. Another indication of NGOs’ positive reputation is that 37% of those who The size of a locality also makes a difference know of specifi c NGOs have volunteered for in youth attitudes and their civic participation. the organizations, and 22% have approached Youth in Yerevan are less likely than youth them for help with an issue of problem. in other regions to be informed about local government, interested in politics, or engaged YOUTH in civic activism. While, for example, 93% of youth in other regions can name their mayor, The survey data indicates that while young only 58% of youth in Yerevan can do so. adults in Armenia (18-25) have similar levels Furthermore, 57% of youth in Yerevan have of information on their local community as never discussed local government activities those aged 26 and above, young people do with acquaintances in the past year, compared tend to be less interested and engaged in to only 40% of youth in other regions. politics than older adults. While this makes little difference in patterns of voting between WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE youth and older adults, it does lead to lower levels of civic participation among youth. The pattern of responses in the survey on Despite some interest in local government, questions addressing the role of women only 12% of youth have tried to address in society indicates that while the majority

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 9 of Armenians may support the theoretical a bare majority said that domestic violence extension of equal opportunity for women in was not a common problem in Armenia. In society, in reality they are reluctant to think this survey, almost two-thirds of Armenians of women in roles other than those to which have this opinion. Another encouraging they have been traditionally assigned. The sign is that beside physical abuse, many vast majority of Armenians, men and women, Armenians also cite the limiting of women’s see women involved in family, as well as in rights and psychological abuse as forms of the education and health-care sectors, while violence against women. only 6% mention national governance and 5% mention local governance. Armenians are closely split on whether women had more infl uence during Soviet The incorporation of concrete steps to expand times compared to the present. In addition, opportunities for women in the political arena a large percentage of Armenians, primarily also reveals a split in Armenian society. younger in age, do not have an opinion on While a majority of Armenians generally this question (27%). Among those who think support women’s participation in politics, women had more infl uence in Soviet times, fewer are willing to set aside seats in the many cite the changing socio-political roles National Assembly for women. Overall, 45% of women as well as a shift in the social order support setting aside seats for women in as reasons. Among those who think women parliamentary bodies and 41% are opposed have more infl uence at present, many cite the to this step. While more men are opposed greater freedoms enjoyed by women, their to reserved seats than supportive of it, even changing socio-political roles and the greater among women, nearly four in ten are opposed political participation by women as reasons. to reserved seats. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE JUDICIAL Societal support for women’s involvement in SYSTEM AND CORRUPTION politics is mirrored in parental encouragement of this activity. If this year’s survey is an In addition to a lack of confi dence in public indication, Armenians are becoming more offi cials, the majority of Armenians also lack reluctant to encourage their daughters to confi dence in the judicial system in Armenia. become involved in politics. In this year’s The majority of Armenians do not think their survey, more Armenians (42%) would not justice system would protect them from unjust encourage their daughter to run for political treatment from the state, or that their justice offi ce than the percentage that would (37%). system would be sure to acquit them if they By contrast, 44% in the 2002 survey voiced were wrongly accused of a crime. Another support for encouraging their daughters to source of distrust toward the judiciary results run for offi ce and 36% were opposed. from the fact that while 78% of Armenians agree that it is important for the judiciary One positive fi nding from the survey is that to be independent, only 18% of Armenians more Armenians are likely to think that believe that judicial decisions are not women in Armenia are portrayed positively infl uenced by political leaders. Among those rather than negatively by the Armenian who think it is important for the judiciary to media (46% versus 11%). Armenians cite be independent, 80% do not believe this to the portrayal of women’s roles in society, the be the case in Armenia. portrayal of women’s participation in politics, the portrayal of women’s rights, and their One reason for dissatisfaction with the judicial personal characteristics as reasons for their system may be the perception among almost perceptions of media portrayal of women. all Armenians that offi cial corruption is a very or somewhat serious problem in the country. Another fi nding which may signal an Unfortunately, corruption is also thought to improvement in women’s standing in Armenian be increasingly endured as more than four society is that the percentage of Armenians in fi ve Armenians believe that their fellow who say that violence against women is very citizens accept corruption as a fact of life. or somewhat common in Armenia has declined signifi cantly, from 42% in the 2001 survey to 31% in this year’s survey. In the 2001 survey,

10 IFES SURVEY 2003 POLITICAL INTEREST AND INFORMATION III. POLITICAL INTEREST local government than urban respondents (39% versus 32%). Combining responses to AND INFORMATION the questions on interest in politics in general and interest in local government activity, Interest in Politics: Interest in politics 26% of Armenians are found to be interested and government has decreased in Armenia in both, 32% are partially interested, that is since the 2002 IFES survey. In 2003, 50% interested in one but not the other, and 35% of Armenians report being very or somewhat are not interested in either. The distribution interested in politics. This refl ects a decrease of interest among Armenians has not changed from 58% who reported being interested in markedly since the 2002 IFES survey. politics in the 2002 survey and return to the level of interest in 2001 (51%) (Figure 1). Level of Knowledge about Local and The higher level of interest in last year’s survey National Offi cials: Those who are interested may have been the result of the pre-election in local government activities generally are environment in Armenia. There is also a more aware of their local representatives gender gap in political interest as 65% of men than those who are not interested in local say they are very or somewhat interested in government activities. Overall, 85% of politics compared to 53% of women. Even Armenians can name their city or village’s though interest goes up with education, at mayor, 66% can name their representative any level of education below university, men to the National Assembly, and 49% can name are signifi cantly more likely to be interested in their Marzpet. Among those who are interested politics than women. Interest also generally in their local government’s activities, 90% goes up with age, with those 18-25 having can identify their mayor compared to 82% of the least amount of interest in politics (48%) those not interested in the activities of their and those 46-65 having the highest level of local government. For representatives to the interest (68%). National Assembly, 74% of those interested can name this person correctly compared to 60% of those not interested. For the Marzpet, the respective percentages are 59% and 43%.

Information on Local Government Activities: While interest in local government activities has remained fairly steady in Armenia, the amount of information on these activities has declined in the past two years. Figure 2 illustrates the trend in information on local government activities since the 2001 Question 64: How interested are you in matters IFES survey in Armenia. of politics and government in Armenia? Are you very interested, somewhat interested, not too interested, or not at all interested? (n = 1,650)

Interest in Local Government Activity: Interest in the activities of local governments has remained fairly steady over the past year. Overall, 9% of Armenians report being very interested in the activities of their local government and 27% are somewhat interested. A majority is not interested in local government activity, 35% being not too interested and 23% not at all interested. In the 2002 IFES survey, 33% reported being very Question 1: Please tell me how much information you or somewhat interested and 65% reported have about the activities of your local government being not too interested or not interested at (LG- Mayor of city / Mayor of village / Yerevan taghapet). Would you say you have a great deal, a all. Rural respondents are somewhat more fair amount, not very much, or no information at all? likely to be interested in the activities of their (n=1,650)

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 11 The percentage of Armenians who say they Viewership of National Assembly have a great deal or fair amount of information Proceedings: Interest in politics, or the lack about the activities of their local government thereof, is a key factor in whether Armenians has declined from 39% in 2001 to 32% in this watch coverage of the National Assembly on year’s survey while those who do not have television. Overall, 24% of Armenians are much or any information has increased from regular viewers of the coverage, watching 59% to 67%. This decline in information is at least once a week. Twenty-eight percent especially evident in rural areas. In 2001, never watch coverage of the proceedings. 47% of residents in rural areas said they had The percentage of Armenians who never a great deal or fair amount of information on watch the coverage has increased from 23% the activities of their local government. This in 2002. Those with little or no interest in has declined to 37% in this year’s survey. politics are much more likely to never watch the coverage compared to those who are Residents of Vajots Dzor (48%), Tavush interested in politics (40% versus 15%) (46%), and Shirak (44%) are most likely to (Figure 3). Men are more likely to watch say that they have a great deal or fair amount the coverage at least once a week (28%) of information on local government activities. than women (21%). Conversely, residents of Aragatsotn and Yerevan (25% each) are least likely to have a great deal or fair amount of information.

Information about Local Budgets: Given the relatively low levels of information about local government activity in the country, it is not surprising that few Armenians are aware of their community’s budget and how funds are spent. Seventy-eight percent of Armenians have no information whatsoever on the budget. Two percent of Armenians are well-informed and another 6% are somewhat Question 31: How often do you watch media coverage informed. The general lack of awareness of the National Assembly on television? (n=1,650) about community budgets may be related to the fact that information on this topic Knowledge of Institutional Respon- is mostly transmitted by word of mouth. sibilities: When Armenians are given a Among those informed about the budget, list of specifi c problems and asked what relatives and friends (38%) and local offi cials government institution they would contact (22%) are two of the primary sources of in order to address the problem, a majority information. Among wider reaching sources, of Armenians can correctly identify the only television is mentioned by more than institution responsible in most cases. A ten percent of those informed on the budget majority of Armenians can correctly identify (25%). Newspapers are mentioned by 9% the responsible organization for fi xing holes and radio by 4%. in streets in their neighborhood (77%), for problems with the telephone service (64%), When asked who should decide how local for collection of trash (58%), for problems budgets are spent, more than three-quarters with the drinking water at home (52%), of Armenians prefer local control. Thirty- and for putting their name on the voters list four percent prefer these decisions to be (51%). Very few Armenians (4%) can name made by local self-governing bodies, 25% the institution responsible for fi xing holes on prefer the mayor or village leader, and 19% the highway. Given the fact that Armenians would leave these decisions up to residents of voted in three national elections in 2003, it is the community itself. Preference for the local somewhat surprising that a bare majority can self-governing bodies is higher in rural areas identify where to go for problems with the (44%) than urban areas (30%). National- voters list. A problem is especially evident in level institutions are only mentioned by 7% rural areas where 39% can name the correct of the population. institution compared to 56% in urban areas. Urban residents are also more likely than

12 IFES SURVEY 2003 POLITICAL INTEREST AND INFORMATION rural respondents to identify the institution responsible for problems with drinking water (62% versus 30%) and for problems with telephone service (68% versus 54%). Rural residents are more likely than urban residents to identify the correct institution for fi xing holes in the street (82% versus 75%) and for trash collection (64% versus 55%).

Awareness of Select Publications: In the run-up to the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2003, Armenians were provided information on the election process through the use of various sources of information such as posters and guides. Twelve percent of Armenians report having read the “Check the Voter’s List” posters and a further 13% report hearing of these posters. Nine percent read the “Voters Q&A Guide” and 12% heard of this publication. On more general matters, 7% report having read the “Local Self- Government Guide,” and 10% have heard of this publication.

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 13

ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL EFFICACY IV. ELECTIONS AND presidential election, 21% parliamentary election). A signifi cant percentage of those POLITICAL EFFICACY who did not vote did not do so because they feel that elections in Armenia are not fair. Voting in 2002-2003: In 2002 and 2003, Twenty-seven percent mention this for the Armenians had numerous opportunities to second round of the presidential election, vote. Elections were held for local offi ces, 22% for the parliamentary election, and the parliament, and the president. The 20% for the fi rst round of the presidential fi ndings from this survey indicate that most election. Armenians say that they participated in each of these elections. However, the percentage Fairness of Elections: The vast majority of Armenians reporting that they voted in of Armenians do not believe that the these elections is signifi cantly greater than parliamentary nor presidential elections in the offi cial voter turnout fi gures for these 2003 were free and fair. When asked to elections. IFES’ general experience in post- gauge the fairness of these elections, most election surveys in the former Soviet republics Armenians say that they were completely or has been that a far higher percentage of somewhat unfair. Given a choice between people report having voted in an election expressing strong or temperate disapproval than the percentage that actually turned out of the parliamentary and presidential to vote. This is mainly because voting is elections, a majority of Armenians express seen as a good thing that all citizens should strong disapproval of the presidential do. IFES’ local contractor who conducted the elections in saying that they were not fair at fi eldwork for this survey, Sociometr, believes all (52%) and 49% feel the same way about that this effect may have been heightened the parliamentary election. In both cases, in this survey because the questions on three-quarters of all Armenians are likely to voting in the 2003 elections came at the end think that the elections were unfair to some of the questionnaire after respondents had degree (Figure 4). answered many other questions on socio- political issues. The combined impact of these two factors seems to have resulted in reported voting turnout higher than that in the offi cial fi gures.

In the survey, 79% report voting in the November 2002 local elections, 88% in the fi rst round of the presidential election in February 2003, 86% in the second round of the presidential election in March 2003, and 81% report having voted in the May 2003 parliamentary elections. Those interested in Question 78: What do you think, the 2003 politics are more likely to have voted in each parliamentary elections in Armenia were fair or not? (n=1,650) of these elections than those not interested Question 79: What about the 2003 presidential in politics. Residents of Yerevan report elections? Do you think that these elections were relatively lower levels of participation in the completely fair, somewhat fair, not very fair, or not fair at all? (n=1,650) local elections (67%), the parliamentary elections (73%), and the second round of Combining the responses to these questions the presidential election (79%). also indicates the degree to which Armenians are dissatisfi ed with the fairness of the Those who did not vote in an election were parliamentary and presidential elections. asked why they had not done so. For each of Only 2% of Armenians think that the the elections, more than 30% of those who presidential and parliamentary elections did not vote say that they did not have a were completely fair, and 11% think that both chance to vote on the day of elections. Many types of elections were fair to some degree. also report not voting because they were not On the other hand, 43% of Armenians think interested in the elections (22% fi rst round CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 15 that the presidential and parliamentary elections were not fair at all and a further 25% think that both types of elections were not fair to some degree.

The percentage of Armenians who think that the presidential and parliamentary elections were unfair to some degree is nearly identical to the percentage of Armenians who thought the elections would not be fair or fair at all in the 2002 IFES survey in Armenia (73%). This fi nding indicates that the 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections and the controversies associated with them do Question 80: Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The 2003 not represent a signifi cant departure from presidential and parliamentary elections show that previous electoral experiences in Armenia, Armenia is progressing toward adopting the practices at least in the eyes of ordinary Armenians. of a fully democratic state.” (n=1,650)

Dissatisfaction with the fairness of both the The vast majority of those who assess the presidential and parliamentary elections parliamentary or presidential elections in exists among all major sub-groups of the 2003 as being fair also agree that these population in Armenia. However, residents elections show Armenia is moving toward of several marzes are less likely than the full democracy. On the other hand, nearly national average to think that both types of three-fourths of those who do not assess elections were not fair at all: Kotayk (22%), the 2003 elections as being fair disagree Syunik (29%), and Lori (33%). While not that these elections exhibit a move toward dissatisfi ed to the degree of intensity evident full democracy. in other marzes, a majority of residents in each of these marzes thinks that the Political Effi cacy: Just as opinions on presidential and parliamentary elections electoral fairness impact opinions on whether were unfair to some degree. Armenia is moving toward full democracy, these opinions also impact Armenians’ Elections and Democracy: The perceived views of their infl uence on political decision- lack of fairness in the presidential and making. Respondents to the survey were parliamentary elections leads most asked to what degree they agreed or Armenians to disagree with the statement disagreed with the following statements: that these elections “…show that Armenia is “Voting gives people like me a chance to infl uence progressing toward adopting the practices decision-making in Armenia.” of a fully democratic state.” Twenty- “People like me have little or no infl uence on the eight percent of Armenians completely or way things are run in Armenia.” somewhat agree that these elections did show progress toward a fully democratic Thirty-two percent of Armenians strongly state, but a majority (60%) disagrees with or somewhat agree that voting gives them the statement. As would be expected, a chance to infl uence decision-making agreement or disagreement with this while a majority (58%) disagrees with statement is infl uenced by the perceived this statement. Even a majority of those fairness of the presidential and parliamentary who report voting in 2003 disagree with elections (Figure 5). this statement, 56% among those who report voting in the parliamentary election, and 57% each among those who report voting in the fi rst and second rounds of the presidential election.

16 IFES SURVEY 2003 ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL EFFICACY

The vast majority of Armenians agree that besides voting (33%) or do not know of any they have little or no infl uence on the way way besides voting to do this (5%) (Figure things are run in Armenia (62%) while 28% 7). The most often-mentioned action is disagree with this statement. A majority demonstrations (30%) followed by public of Armenians who think that voting can complaints (20%). Actions such as using give them infl uence over decision-making the media, meeting with offi cials or writing (58%) also disagree that they have little or letters to these offi cials are each mentioned no infl uence on the way things are run in by less than 10% of Armenians. Thirteen Armenia. The vast majority of those who percent of Armenians list negative actions disagree that voting gives them infl uence such as bribes and rebellion. (82%) agree that people like them have little or no infl uence on the way things are run in Armenia.

Data from the survey shows that Armenians’ socio-economic status (SES) has an impact on their opinions on citizens’ infl uence on the political process. Generally, the higher the SES, the more likely Armenians are to agree that voting gives them infl uence over decision-making and disagree that people like them have no infl uence on the way things are run in Armenia (Figure 6).

Question 67: Other than voting, in what ways can citizens attempt to infl uence the actions of government offi cials? (n=1,650)

Information about the Voting Process: When asked how well-informed they were about the voting process, only 29% of Armenians reply that they were fully- informed about the voting process when voting. Thirty-six percent say that they were somewhat informed about the voting process and 24% were not very or not at all informed about the voting process. The level of information about the voting process Question 66B: People like me have little or no infl uence on the way things are run in Armenia. (n=1,650) generally goes up with the level of interest in politics, and with education. Citizen Actions to Infl uence Government Offi cials: A vibrant democratic culture Thirty-seven percent of Armenians believe provides citizens with avenues to address that political parties were most effective in their concerns to those in government. informing voters about the voting process. While elections are the most visible tool Another 21% believe the government was to do this, there are other methods that most effective in providing information about provide citizens opportunities for contact the voting process. Fewer mention non- with government on a more regular basis. governmental organizations or NGOs, either The limited political effi cacy among the international (5%) or domestic (4%). Armenian population is evidenced by the fact that while the majority of Armenians can Comprehensiveness of Voters List: Data name at least one action besides voting to from the survey indicates that the voters list infl uence the actions of government offi cials, was fairly well-maintained both before and nearly four out of ten Armenians think there during election day. Fifty-seven percent of is no way to infl uence government offi cials Armenians report that they checked their

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 17 name on the voting list before election day. Of these people, 95% report that their name was on the voters list and only 5% report that their name was not on the voters list. Those who are fully or somewhat informed about the voting process are much more likely to have checked their name on the voter list before election day than those with little or no information on the voting process.

Those who report voting in the fi rst round of the presidential election were also asked whether their name was on the voters list. Ninety-eight percent of these respondents report that their name was on the voters list.

18 IFES SURVEY 2003 CIVIC ACTIVISM AND ATTITUDES V. CIVIC ACTIVISM AND improvements, 23% mention education and cultural issues, 20% would like to address ATTITUDES public services, and 19% want local offi cials to address social matters. Other areas Participation in Socio-Political Activities: mentioned include human rights, sanitation While many Armenians take part regularly in and hygiene, the health care system, and informal socio-political activities, few report agricultural activities (each 3%). When taking part in more formal activities those who named a particular issue were (Figure 8). asked whether they have taken any actions to address these issues to local government authorities, 26% reply that they have done so and 66% have not taken any actions to address the issues. Rural residents are more likely to have taken actions (31%) than urban residents (24%). Those interested in politics are more likely to have taken actions (31%) than those not interested in politics (20%).

A lack of confi dence in local authorities is the primary reason that Armenians do not take action to address issues of concern in the local community. Forty-one percent of those Question 12: Please look at this list and tell me if you have taken part in these activities in the last year who reported not taking any action did not do and how many cases can you remember, more than so because they did not think it would result ten times, 6-10 times, 2-5 times, just once, or if you in a positive outcome. Twenty percent did have not taken part at all? (n=1,650) not have any need to address these issues and 10% had no opportunity to address the Forty-four percent of Armenians report that issues. The percentage who say that taking they discussed national developments with action would not result in a positive outcome acquaintances more than fi ve times in the has increased from 25% in the 2002 survey past year. Thirty percent of Armenians have to 41% this year, whereas those who say they discussed local developments more than fi ve had no opportunity to address the issues has times with acquaintances in the past year. A decreased from 35% to 10%. majority of Armenians never discussed their local or state budget (70%), signed petitions The vast majority of those who did address (79%), attended condominium association these issues did so through a petition (75%). meetings (85%) or community council Twenty-one percent talked directly to local meetings (88%). For informal activities such offi cials about the issue of interest. as discussing national or local developments, those interested in politics are more likely Contact with Elected Offi cials: The to take part in these regularly than those vast majority of Armenians are in general not interested in politics. However, there is not likely to contact public offi cials to help no difference in participation between these resolve any issues or problems. Twenty- two groups regarding more formal activities four percent of Armenians report having such as signing petitions or attending contacted an elected offi cial to help resolve meetings of their condominium association a problem or issue and 74% say that they or community council. have not contacted an elected offi cial. The percentage of Armenians who report Efforts to Address Important Issues in contacting elected offi cials is about the same the Community: Most Armenians do not as in the 2002 IFES survey (26%), both of take any steps to address issues they consider which are an increase on the percentage to be important in their communities. When reporting contact in 2001 (17%). Rural asked what issues beside economic issues respondents are slightly more likely to are important for their local community, contact elected offi cials (28%) than urban 32% mention community infrastructure respondents (22%). The highest rates of

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 19 contact are reported in Armavir (34%) and past (74%). When asked why they have Syunik (32%) while the lowest are reported not done so, nearly as many Armenians in Aragatsotn (16%) and Lori (17%). reply that they had no reason to contact an elected offi cial as the percentage that say Those who contact elected offi cials are most that it would have done no good to contact likely to contact the head or mayor of their an offi cial (Figure 10). local community (Figure 9).

Question 19: Why haven’t you ever contacted an Question 20: What level of elected offi cial did you elected offi cial before? (n=1,213) contact? (n=386) When asked why they contacted the offi cial Issues for Contacting Elected Offi cials: that they did, a third of those who have A little more than a quarter of Armenians contacted elected offi cials did so because who have contacted elected offi cials did so they trust the offi cial (18%) or because for help with social welfare or education the offi cial is responsible for the issue they issues (27%). Twenty-two percent wanted addressed (15%). Another 11% contacted elected offi cials for help with went to a particular offi cial because they problems with public utilities and 21% were had voted for him or her, and 10% went to seeking help with realty or land issues. an offi cial because the offi cial is accessible. Eleven percent each approached elected Respect for the offi cial (10%) and the offi cials with personal problems or for offi cial’s power to address the issue (10%) help with employment and salary issues. are also mentioned by many respondents. Most elected offi cials are responsive when approached by their constituents. Eighty- Contact with Appointed Offi cials: two percent of those who contacted elected Armenians report less frequent contact with offi cials report that these offi cials responded appointed offi cials to help resolve problems to them. The rate of response is higher than they do with elected offi cials. Only 10% among rural offi cials (90%) than it is among of Armenians report having contacted an urban offi cials (78%). In addition, most of appointed offi cial in the past to help resolve those who received a response were very an issue or problem. As is the case regarding or somewhat satisfi ed with the response of contact with elected offi cials, many of those the elected offi cial (71%), while 29% were who have contacted appointed offi cials dissatisfi ed with the response. The highest have done so for help with social welfare level of satisfaction was among respondents and education issues (32%). Other issues who had approached offi cials about personal for which appointed offi cials are contacted problems (85%) while the lowest was for include employment and salary (17%), those who had approached offi cials about public utilities and services (14%), personal employment or salary issues (55%). or family issues (11%), and problems with land or the home (11%). Reasons for Not Contacting Elected Offi cials: The vast majority of Armenians have not contacted elected offi cials in the

20 IFES SURVEY 2003 CIVIC ACTIVISM AND ATTITUDES

Many of those who have not contacted A majority of Armenians (59%) say that appointed offi cials either have not needed they will not approach any appointed offi cial help with a problem (41%) or do not think for help with a problem. This is signifi cantly that the appointed leaders can help with higher than the percentage saying the the problem (38%). Six percent say they same about elected offi cials. However, did not think of the option of contacting the percentage of Armenians saying that an appointed offi cial and 3% did not know they will not approach any elected offi cial whom to contact. has increased from 32% in the 2002 survey to 41% in this year’s survey. Even Response of Appointed Offi cials: Similar among those who have contacted elected to the fi ndings regarding elected offi cials, offi cials in the past, 22% say they would a high percentage of Armenians who have not contact an elected offi cial in the future. contacted appointed offi cials received The responsiveness of the elected offi cials a response from the appointed offi cials plays a large part in explaining reluctance contacted (77%). Sixty-six percent of those to contact an elected offi cial again. Among who received a response from an appointed those who have contacted an elected offi cial offi cial were very or somewhat satisfi ed with and received a response, 15% say that the response, while 34% were dissatisfi ed. they will not contact any elected offi cial in the future. Among those who contacted an elected offi cial and did not receive a Preferred Elected or Appointed Offi cials: response, 58% say they will not contact an The fi ndings above show that more Armenians offi cial in the future. are likely to have approached elected offi cials than appointed offi cials to help resolve Government Contact with Citizens: problems or address issues. Armenians are Just as there is little contact on the part of also more likely to approach local offi cials Armenians with their elected or appointed over regional or national-level offi cials. offi cials, the survey also indicates that Both these trends are further highlighted in government offi cials in Armenia make response to a question on the survey asking little effort to elicit the opinions of their respondents which elected or appointed constituents. When asked whether offi cial they are most likely to approach to government offi cials had asked for their help resolve a problem (Figure 11). opinions through a variety of means, 63% reply that they have never been asked for their opinions by government offi cials. A further 24% did not reply to this question. Six percent of Armenians have been asked for their opinions by government offi cials through public hearings, 5% through questionnaires and 4% have served on advisory groups.

Knowledge of NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) provide another resource besides the government that Armenians can approach to address issues or seek help in the resolution of specifi c Question 16: If you had a serious problem, which of these, if any, would you fi rst try to contact regarding problems. Compared to other countries in the this? (n=1,650) Caucasus and former Soviet Union, the NGO sector in Armenia is fairly well-developed. The mayor or other leaders in the community This does not mean, however, that it is fairly are the elected offi cials most likely to be well-known. On the IFES survey, only 26% approached by Armenians (39%), followed of Armenians are able to name a specifi c by a member of parliament (9%) and the NGO active in the country. Forty-six percent president (7%). Among appointed offi cials, cannot name any NGO while 24% do not the marzpet is most likely to be approached know what an NGO is. Armenians in urban (23%). areas are more likely to know what NGOs are than those in rural areas (Figure 12).

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 21 Armenians who know of NGOs think that these organizations are either essential or necessary for Armenia. Those who can name at least one NGO are much more likely to fi nd these organizations essential or necessary (79%) than those who cannot name an NGO (48%). Among those who have volunteered for NGOs, 86% think that NGOs are essential or necessary and this percentage is 84% among those who have approached the organizations for help. Direct contact with NGOs has a positive impact on Question 52: Can you tell me which non-governmental evaluations of these organizations. organizations (NGOs) you know something about? (n=1,650) Trust: While the vast majority of Armenians Among NGOs named, the most frequently have trust in those that they know mentioned are the Red Cross (4.3%), personally, they are less trustful of those Women’s Union (2.6%), Women’s Committee not immediately known to them. Generally, (1.7%), Mothers of Soldiers (1.5%), IFES trust in specifi c groups or individuals falls (1.3%), the Lincy Foundation (1.3%), and with distance from a respondent’s social the Women’s Republican Council (1.1%). circle. Figure 13 illustrates this fi nding by showing the percentage of respondents who Sources of Information about NGOs: trust each of the listed groups or individuals. Among those who can name NGOs, mass The particular groups or individuals are media is the primary source of information placed from left to right on the horizontal on these NGOs. Thirty-seven percent of axis in order of proximity to a respondent’s those who can name at least one NGO say immediate social circle. that they heard of the NGO(s) on television and a further 20% mention newspapers or radio. Word-of-mouth is another key source for information on NGOs with 31% hearing of these organizations through relatives and friends. Many have come to know of NGOs either through direct observation of the activities (10%) or by participating in their activities (6%).

Direct Contact with NGOs: Many Armenians who can name an NGO have had some direct contact with these organizations. Questions 57-63: Listed below are different groups Thirty-seven percent of those who know of of people. For each one, please tell me how much do a specifi c NGO have volunteered for NGOs you trust in them? (n=1,650) in the past, and 22% have approached the NGOs for help in resolving a problem. The Armenians have the highest level of trust percentage of those who have contacted in their relatives and neighbors and the NGOs is similar to that for contacting lowest in the National Assembly and people elected offi cials and more than double the from different regions of Armenia. The contact rate for appointed offi cials. Those only discrepancy in the pattern described who know of NGOs fi nd them comparable above is the level of trust in the president to elected and appointed offi cials in helping compared to people from different regions resolve problems. of Armenia and the National Assembly. The low levels of trust in community leaders, Evaluation of NGOs: Non-governmental the president and the National Assembly, organizations generally have a positive illustrate the general dissatisfaction with the image among those Armenians who know political system which are also refl ected in what NGOs are. Fifty-nine percent of other survey responses. 22 IFES SURVEY 2003 YOUTH VI. YOUTH politics and government, compared to 40% of those 18-25. Similarly, while a quarter The survey data shows that while young of older Armenians say they have never people in Armenia (categorized in this watched coverage of the National Assembly survey as 18-25 year olds) have roughly the on TV or heard it on radio, this fi gure is 42% same levels of information on various issues among those 18-25. as older Armenians, they are less likely to be active in socio-political matters. It also Civic Participation: While younger points to differences in opinions between Armenians as a group have similar levels of older men and women on many issues information and interest as older Armenians, that do not exist among younger men and those 18-25 are less likely to participate in women. There are, as well, large differences socio-political matters as older Armenians. between younger men and women on issues When asked whether they have tried to having to do with women’s role in society address important local issues, 12% of those and voting. 18-25 report having done this compared to 28% of older 26 and over. A quarter Political Information and Interest: There of those 26 and over (25%) report having is no statistically signifi cant difference in contacted an elected offi cial to help resolve information and interest in local government a problem, compared to 15% of Armenians activity between youth and those 26 and 18-25. Many younger Armenians who have above. Overall, 27% of youth say that not tried to address important issues or they have information on local government contacted elected offi cials say they have not activities compared to 32% of older adults. taken these actions because there has not Thirty-four percent of youth say that they been a need to do so. While many issues are interested in local government activities typically addressed by elected or other compared to 37% of those 26 and above. government offi cials may not have a natural Both groups have little information on their calling for younger Armenians, there exists community’s budget (6% youth, 9% older the likelihood that many younger Armenians adults). simply do not know that their elected or other government offi cials can address issues One indication of the parity of information that are important to them. Education and on local matters between young and older training on the ways that public offi cials Armenians is the fact that there is little can serve younger Armenians may lead to difference between these two groups in greater contact with government offi cials knowledge of local offi cials and the methods among those 18-25. through which they attain offi ce. Eighty- nine percent of those 18-25 know that their Voting: Younger Armenians are about as mayor is elected (82% can name the mayor) likely as older Armenians to have voted in the compared to 85% of those 26+ (85% can three elections that took place in Armenia in name the mayor). Similarly, 72% of those 2003. For the parliamentary election, 82% 26+ know that their marzpet is appointed of older Armenians report having voted in (50% can name the marzpet) versus 71% the election compared to 77% of those 18- among those 18-25 who know how their 25. A similar slight difference is observed on marzpet attains offi ce (47% can name the voting in the fi rst round of the presidential marzpet). election (85% among 18-25, 89% 26+). For the second round of the presidential While younger Armenians are as likely to election, 86% of Armenians 26 and over be interested in their local government’s report having voted compared to 84% of activities as their older counterparts and have those 18-25. similar levels of information on local offi cials, they are less interested in general matters Young Armenians are just as likely as those of politics and government. A majority of 26 and over to share concerns about the those 26 and over (52%) say that they are integrity of the elections that took place in very or somewhat interested in matters of 2003. Nearly three-quarters of those 18- 25 (74%) think that the 2003 parliamentary

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 23 election was not very fair or not fair at all, Figure 14. Gender Differences similar to those 26 and over (75%). Similar 18 to 25 26 and Above attitudes are expressed among both groups Men Women Men Women regarding the presidential election (73% 18-25, 74% 26 and over). A majority of Interest in 44% 41% 20% 29% matters of both groups (55% 18-25, 60% 26 and politics and over) also disagree that the 2003 elections government show Armenia’s progress toward a full (% interested) democracy.

Despite the concerns about the 2003 Coverage 37% 43% 58% 48% elections, political effi cacy has improved of National somewhat among those under 25 over Assembly (% the past year. In the 2002 survey, 61% of never watch/ those 18-25 disagreed with the statement hear) that voting infl uences decision-making in

Armenia, compared to 50% in this survey. Question 3: How interested are you in the activities In 2002, 76% of young Armenians agreed of your LG (LG – Mayor of city / Mayor of village / that the Armenian people have little or no Yerevan taghapet)? (n=1,650) Question 31: How often do you watch media coverage infl uence on decision making in Armenia. of the National Assembly on television? (n=1,650) While a majority still agrees with this statement (59%), this percentage has gone The differences among older men and down since 2002. The increased effi cacy women cannot be attributed to education, as may be a temporary phenomenon resulting the difference persists even when controlled from the 2003 elections. for education. This data seems to indicate that societal or other factors may play a role Gender Differences: Despite the similarities in limiting women’s information about socio- in information levels and interest on local political affairs as they get older. government activities, there is a divergence in gender gaps among youth and older adults. One area where there are larger gender Among youth, men and women have roughly differences among respondents 18-25 is in the same levels of information on local voting. Among those 18-25, women are less government activity as well as roughly the likely to have voted in two of the three 2003 same level of interest in this activity. This is elections than men. In the parliamentary not the case for older adults. Men are more election, 87% of men report having voted likely to have a great deal or fair amount of compared to 70% of women. In the fi rst information among older adults than women round of the presidential election, 90% (39% men versus 27% women), and men of men claim to have voted compared to are also more likely to be interested in the 81% of women, and in the second round activities of their local government than the reported participation rate is 86% for women (39% versus 28%). men and 83% for women. These results are somewhat surprising given that in the As with interest in local government activity, 2002 survey, young women were more there are larger differences between men likely to say they were certain of voting in and women among older Armenians than the presidential (56% women, 46% men) among those 18-25. Figure 14 highlights and parliamentary (43% women, 34% men) these differences. elections. Perhaps many more young women who were likely to vote did not actually vote than men who were likely to vote. There is little difference in reported vote among older men and women.

Another area where the gender gap is larger among young men and women has to do

24 IFES SURVEY 2003 YOUTH with attitudes toward the role of women ensure fair representation. B. Setting aside seats for women in the National in society. Younger men are more likely Assembly is unnecessary, since women should to have conservative attitudes toward the compete with men for the same elected positions. role of women in society when compared Question 45: How likely is it that you would vote for a woman political candidate, if she was as equally to their female counterparts, than is the qualifi ed as the male candidate? (n = 1,650) case for older men (26 and above). These Question 47: Now imagine you have a daughter. include attitudes on whether women should Would you encourage your daughter to run for political offi ce? (n = 1,650) be involved in politics, whether there should Question 42: Women in Armenia are differently active be set-aside seats for women in parliament, in the following areas of social life. Please look at the list and tell me in which three areas you think it is most , whether women should be involved in important for women to be involved? (n=1,650) business, whether a respondent would vote for a woman candidate, and whether a The IFES survey did not probe the causes respondent would encourage their daughter for disagreement or opposition to steps that to run for political offi ce. Figure 15 compares raise the profi le of roles played by women in the attitudes of men and women in the 18- Armenian society. 25 as well as 26 and above group on these issues. Difference between Youth in Yerevan and Rest of Country: An analysis of the Figure 15. opinions of those 18-25 in Yerevan and 18 to 25 26 and Above other parts of the country reveals that Men Women Men Women young people in Yerevan are less likely Women 37% 24% 27% 18% to be informed about local government should not be and personalities, to be less interested in involved in politics, and to be less likely to engage in politics civic activism. (% agree)

Set-aside 25% 54% 40% 50% Nineteen percent of youth in Yerevan say seats for they have a great deal or fair amount of women in information on local government activities, parliament compared to 35% of youth in other parts of (% agree) the country. While 93% of youth in other parts of the country can name their mayor Would vote 51% 79% 63% 75% and 53% can name their marzpet, the for a woman percentage among youth in Yerevan is 58% candidate (% likely) and 32%, respectively. Youth in Yerevan are less likely to be interested in local Would 16% 35% 34% 41% government activities (19%) and general encourage areas of politics and government (28%) daughter to than youth in other parts of the country run for offi ce (40% and 45%, respectively). (% agree)

Think women 2% 18% 4% 7% The lack of information and interest among should youth in Yerevan results in decreased levels participate in of civic activity when compared to youth in business other parts of the country. While youth in Yerevan are as likely as other youth to say Question 41: How much do you agree or disagree with that they voted in the fi rst and second rounds this statement: “A woman should not be involved in of presidential elections, they are less likely political events?” (n=1,650) Question 43: As you may know, women are more to have voted in the parliamentary elections than 50% of the total electorate in Armenia. However, (66% versus 82%). Yerevan youth are more there are very few women elected to political offi ces. likely to say that they have never discussed I will now read you two statements. Please tell me which of these statements you agree with most: (n local government activity in the past year = 1,650) with acquaintances (57% versus 40% other A. We should set aside a certain number of seats in the National Assembly only for women, in order to youth).

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 25

WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE VII. WOMEN IN PUBLIC participation (17%), women’s rights (9%), and of their personal characteristics (9%). LIFE Among those who think that the media portrays women positively, the most often Media Portrayal of Women: More cited reason is the portrayal of women’s Armenians think that the Armenian media roles in society (39%) followed by the portrays women positively (46%) than portrayal of women’s participation in society the percentage who think that women are (20%), and the portrayal of their personal portrayed negatively (11%) or in a neutral characteristics (11%). Among those who manner (18%) by the media. Armenians’ think the media portrays women negatively, opinions on the portrayal of women by the the most oft-cited reason is also the portrayal media have fl uctuated in IFES surveys since of women’s roles in society (29%) followed 2001 (Figure 16). by the portrayal of their participation in society (17%).

Socio-Political Involvement for Women: One method of judging the societal progress made by women is to gauge society’s acceptance of women in roles other than traditional roles. Judging by the results of a question which asked respondents to choose the areas in which it is important for women to be involved, both men and women still see primary importance in women occupying traditional roles in society (Figure 17).

Question 39: How do you think Armenian media portrays women today in Armenian society? (n=1,650)

The percentage of Armenians who think that the media portrays women positively rose from 45% in 2001 to 54% in 2002 but has fallen to 46% in this year’s survey. There has not been an increase in the percentage of Armenians who think that the media portrays women negatively or in a neutral manner, but a substantial increase in the percentage of people who do not have an opinion on this matter in this year’s survey Question 42: Women in Armenia are differently active (26%). There is no signifi cant difference in the following areas of social life. Please look at between men and women on opinions on this the list and tell me in which three areas you think it issue. The percentage of women who think is most important for women to be involved? (Men, that the media portrays women positively n=713; Women, n=933) has decreased from 57% in 2002 to 47% in There is a wide disparity in preference for 2003. women occupying roles between those societal sectors traditionally associated with Reasons for Perception of Media women and those traditionally associated Portrayal: The most cited reason for the with men. A majority of both men and perceptions that Armenians have of the women think that it is important for women portrayal of women in the media is its to be involved in the family, education, and positive or negative portrayal of women’s health care. Close to 30% of both men and roles in society (34%). Other reasons for women think it is important for women to the perceptions of women’s portrayal in the be involved in social welfare. Fewer than media include the portrayals of women’s 10% of both men and women think it is CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 27 important for women to be involved in 51% do not. governance, business, or the military. While Among those who would set-aside seats for women do not differ markedly from men in women, a majority would like to set aside their preferences, there is a slight gender more than 20 seats for women (Figure 18). gap among women in preferences for a role in business. Women 18-25 are much more likely to say that women should have a role in business (18%) than older women (7%).

Women’s Involvement in Politics: While more than 90% of both men and women do not think it’s important that women play a role in national and local decision-making, a majority of both think that women should be involved in political events generally. Seventy-four percent of Armenians disagree with the statement, “A woman should not be involved in political events.” Twenty- Question 44: What percentage of seats do you think three percent of Armenians agree with should be set aside for women? (n=788) this statement. Women are more likely to disagree with the statement than men (77% Fifty-three percent of those who support versus 69%), and less likely to agree (19% set-aside seats would like 21 or more seats versus 28%). to be set aside in the National Assembly for women. Only 16% of these respondents Voting for Women Candidates: A majority would like 10 or fewer seats to be set aside. of Armenians (69%) express a willingness There is little difference between men and to vote for a woman candidate if she is as women on the number of seats that should qualifi ed as a man. This percentage is lower be set aside. than the 79% who reported a willingness to vote for a woman candidate in the 2002 IFES Encouraging Daughter to Run for survey. Twenty-three percent of Armenians Offi ce: Respondents on the survey were are unwilling to vote for a woman candidate. also asked whether they would encourage Women are more likely to vote for a woman their daughter, whether they have one or candidate than men (75% versus 62%). imagining they have one, to run for political offi ce. There has been a shift in opinions Set-Aside Seats for Women in on this question since the 2002 IFES survey Parliament: As in the 2002 IFES survey, (Figure 19). Armenians are ambivalent about setting aside a quota of seats for women in the National Assembly. A slim plurality (45%) supports setting aside seats for women in parliament, while 41% are opposed to this. Three percent agree with both arguments and 5% disagree with both arguments. Fifty percent of women support setting aside seats while 38% do not. Among men, 38% support set-asides and 47% do not. Opinions on setting aside seats for women are related to opinions on whether a respondent would vote for a woman candidate. Among those who are likely to vote for a woman candidate, 53% support setting aside seats and 39% do not. The reverse is true for Question 47: Now imagine you have a daughter. Would you encourage your daughter to run for those who are unlikely to vote for a woman political offi ce? (n=1,650) candidate: 28% support set-aside seats and

28 IFES SURVEY 2003 WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE

The decrease in encouraging daughters to run the increased participation by women, and for political offi ce can partially be attributed 15% cite the changing social order. It is to dissatisfaction with the presidential and interesting to note the very different reactions parliamentary elections in 2003, specifi cally to changing socio-political roles and social the perceptions that these elections were not changes among Armenians at different age fair. Many Armenians who think the elections groups. Generally, older Armenians see this were unfair may not want their daughters as negative while younger Armenians see the associated with such an exercise. Among change as positive in terms of the infl uence those who think the presidential elections of Armenian women in decision-making. were fair, 43% would encourage their daughters to run for offi ce and 38% would Violence against Women: One positive not. Among those who think these elections indicator on the IFES survey has been were not fair, 35% would encourage their a decrease since the 2002 survey in the daughter to run for offi ce and 43% would not. percentage of Armenians who think that Similar differences in opinion are observed domestic violence against women is very between those who think the parliamentary or somewhat common in Armenia, and a elections were or were not fair. corresponding increase in the percentage who think that this type of violence is not Infl uence of Women in Soviet Times: very or at all common (Figure 20). Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: “Under the Soviet system, women had much more infl uence in the decision-making process of Armenia.” Overall, 33% of Armenians strongly or somewhat agree with this statement while 37% disagree with the statement. Twenty- seven percent do not have an opinion. Age is a key factor in opinions on this statement. The older the respondent, the more likely they are to agree that women had more infl uence under the Soviet system. One reason is that many younger respondents (aged 18-35) are unable to offer an opinion, Question 48: In your opinion, is violence against presumably because many in this age group women within the home a very common problem, somewhat common, not very common, or there is did not spend their formative years under very little violence against women within the home? the Soviet system. (n=1,650)

When those who agree or disagree with this The percentage that thinks domestic statement were asked why they held this violence is common has decreased from opinion, a discernible difference is observed 39% to 31%, while those who do not think between those who agree and disagree. it is common have increased from 48% to Among those who agree that women had 61%. Women are more likely than men to more infl uence during Soviet times, 36% think that domestic violence is common in mention the change in socio-political roles Armenia (35% versus 26%). Armenians in of women as one reason their infl uence has urban areas are more likely than those in declined. Sixteen percent cite a shift in the rural areas to think that domestic abuse is social order and another 14% cite a shift in common (33% versus 27%). When asked traditions. Thirteen percent, primarily 45 what domestic abuse means, 41% mention and older, rely on personal memories of the physical abuse, 33% mention limiting of Soviet era to make this judgment. Among women’s rights and inequality, 28% cite those who disagree that women had more moralistic restrictions on women, and 15% infl uence during Soviet times, 23% cite the list psychological abuse. Women are less greater freedoms observed by Armenian likely than men to stress physical violence, women today, 19% cite a positive shift in but more likely to stress inequality and socio-political roles of women, 18% cite limiting of rights.

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 29

JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND CORRUPTION VIII. JUDICIAL SYSTEM important for the judiciary in the country to be independent of political pressures AND CORRUPTION when making decisions, a minority actually believes this to be the case. Seventy- Confi dence in Judicial System: There is eight percent of Armenians completely or a widespread lack of confi dence that the somewhat agree that it is important for the judicial system in Armenia is fair and just. judiciary to be independent. However, only A majority of Armenians do not think their 18% of Armenians agree that the judiciary judicial system would protect them from is not infl uenced by political leaders when unjust treatment from the state or that it making decisions. Only 19% of those who would be sure to acquit them if they were think the judiciary should be independent wrongly accused of a crime (Figure 21). agree that judicial decisions in Armenia are not infl uenced by political leaders. Eighty percent of those who think the judiciary should be independent do not believe this to be the case. This has ramifi cations for the development of a democracy based on the rule of law in Armenia.

Offi cial Corruption: More than eight in ten Armenians believe that offi cial corruption is either a very serious (71%) or somewhat serious problem (16%) in Armenia. The vast majority of all major sub-groups in the population hold this opinion. On an even Question 66: Do you strongly agree, somewhat more pessimistic note, 81% of Armenians agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with believe that their countrymen accept this statement. (n=1,650) C. I trust the justice system to protect me from corruption as a fact of life. Combining the unjust treatment of the state. responses to these two questions shows that D. If I were wrongly accused of a crime, I am sure 75% of Armenians believe that corruption our judicial system would acquit me. is a serious problem and that Armenians Sixty-eight percent of all Armenians accept it as a fact of life (Figure 22). Very completely or strongly disagree with the few Armenians (2%) both do not believe statement that their justice system would corruption is a serious problem and do not protect them from unjust treatment from the think their fellow citizens accept it as a fact state, and 63% disagree that they would be of life. This does not bode well for tackling sure to be acquitted if wrongly accused of corruption problems in the near future. a crime. A lack of confi dence in the justice system protecting against unjust treatment of the state is especially high among those who think that the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2003 were not fair. Among those who think the election was not very or at all fair, 73% disagree that the judicial system protects against unjust treatment. This compares to 51% among those think the presidential election was fair who have the same opinion. Lack of confi dence in the judicial system generally increases with the level of education of the respondent. Question 68: In your opinion, how serious is the problem of offi cial corruption in Armenia? (n=1,650) Question 69: Do you think that citizens of Armenia Independence of Judiciary: While the accept corruption as a fact of life? (n=1,650) vast majority of Armenians agree that it is

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 31

CONCLUSION IX. CONCLUSION than 4,370 dialogue groups and more than 300,000 copies of 40 different publications, The main fi ndings of IFES’ 2003 survey IFES has been channeling information suggest that many in the Armenian public throughout the country on such topics as fi nd themselves disengaged from the politics voter rights, local governance, the court and the political process in the country. In system, condominiums, and human rights. general, Armenians do not feel confi dent that their country is moving in the right direction In addition to having low levels of information, and express cynicism about the working of the 2003 survey shows a decrease in civic their government and the political process. participation among Armenians. Apart from elections, which experienced high turnout, The 2003 survey was conducted in the Armenians generally do not participate months after the country’s two cycles of in formal civic activities. In addition, highly contested elections. Overwhelmingly, there has been a decline in the interaction Armenians believe that both the presidential between citizens and public offi cials on the and parliamentary elections were not local level since the 2002 IFES survey. The fair and that the elections do not signal skepticism surrounding general political Armenia’s progress in the direction of full events carries over to assessments of local democracy. In turn, citizens’ pessimistic offi cials as the reason most frequently given attitudes regarding the legitimacy of the for not contacting local offi cials was because elections have had an important impact on people did not feel that anything could be the political effi cacy of the public. Those accomplished by contacting their elected who feel that elections were not fair also or appointed offi cials. People do not feel believe that regular citizens do not have any that their concerns are taken seriously by infl uence on the political process. offi cials so they lack the motivation to try to resolve them in this manner. Similar to their attitude towards the political arena, Armenians generally lack confi dence To help initiate contact between citizens and in their country’s judicial system. Survey local offi cials in Armenian, IFES has been results show that people do not believe that promoting interaction between residents the judiciary is an independent institution, and elected offi cials through community but instead that judicial decisions are forums and initiative groups under the infl uenced by political fi gures. In addition, CAPA project. Forums allow residents to most Armenians feel that corruption is a discuss their community’s issues of concern serious problem in the country and have with the responsible decision makers and accepted it as part of their day-to-day life. work towards fi nding appropriate solutions Unfortunately, this fi nding has not shown to them. Initiative groups develop and improvement since last year’s survey. implement strategic plans that seek to resolve community problems by cooperative The 2003 IFES survey suggests that many efforts. It is hoped that through these types Armenians are not informed about or of efforts, interaction between citizens and interested in politics in general or political public offi cials will increase in the target events at the local level. In turn, this affects communities under CAPA. One encouraging citizen knowledge and participation in civic note in this regard is that despite the decline and socio-political activities. Given these in interaction and lack of confi dence in local low levels of information and the general offi cials evidenced in the survey, those skepticism that most Armenians have that have made contact with offi cials are toward their political system, it is important generally pleased with the response they that efforts be made to increase the level received from them. of information available to Armenians. IFES does this through its activities in the Citizens’ For the fi rst time, IFES’ survey gave specifi c Awareness and Participation in Armenia attention to Armenian young adults between (CAPA) project that provide a reliable source the ages of 18-25. Young people have of information to Armenians. Through more become a fundamental part of many IFES projects over the years so it is important CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 33 to examine the attitudes of youth towards likely than men to respond that domestic participation in civil and political activities. violence still persists. On a more positive In general, the survey found that youth are note, the survey revealed a more positive less interested and less engaged in matters portrayal of women by the media and found of politics on both the national and local that a majority of both men and women levels. As a result, youth in Yerevan are believe that women should be involved in less informed about local government, less political events. interested in politics, and less engaged in civic activism. These fi ndings underscore Through collaboration with the Women’s the continued need to include youth in civil Republic Council (WRC), IFES works society capacity-building programs. to provide concrete examples of how women can be involved in public life and contribute to the political development IFES has observed time and time again of Armenia. Towards this end, they have the enthusiastic response of young people begun a campaign to raise awareness of when the outlets for greater community the government-endorsed “National Plan of involvement are provided to them. Action on Improvement of Women’s Status in Encouraging and providing opportunities for the Republic of Armenia and Enhancement of greater youth involvement in the governance their Role in the Society 2004-2010” (NPA), of their communities is the focus of IFES’ by distributing publications and working advocacy initiatives in several regions of with the mass media. Armenia. Various campaigns are striving for youth participation in community council The 2003 IFES survey in Armenia refl ects meetings, the creation of youth committees popular opinions on Armenian democracy before local city administrations, securing line that are less positive than those expressed in items in local budgets for youth programs, the 2002 survey. The change in the opinion increasing the number of youth specialists climate may indicate a gradual disengagement in the city administration, and the creation of Armenians from their country’s politics. of youth clubs. However, IFES has witnessed fi rst-hand that positives outcomes are possible in its day- Greater involvement among youth is also to-day work with residents in over 40% of seen in volunteer initiatives and campaigns the country’s communities. To address some organized throughout Armenia. During IFES’ of the trends identifi ed in this survey, it is annual volunteer action, “Good Will, Good essential that citizens have opportunities and Deeds, Good Results”, young community venues to voice their concerns, to become activists comprise roughly half of event informed about community and national organizers and serve as an invaluable issues, and to feel that their voice matters source of energy and ideas. The event, in the governance and development of their which has drawn over 278,000 people to communities and their country. When areas participate in the more than 2,900 events, of opportunity exist and if they are properly encourages young people to get involved and developed, they can serve to improve raises awareness about the importance of Armenia’s progress towards becoming volunteerism in solving common problems. a modern and transparent participatory democracy. Turning to the general attitude towards women’s involvement in society, the opinion that women should mainly occupy traditionally female roles, such as in education and healthcare, still persists. The survey also found even less progress for the idea that women could adequately fulfi ll the role of public leaders. And, although there has been a decline amongst the percentage of Armenians who believe domestic violence to be a common problem, women are more

34 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 1. METHODOLIGICAL SUMMARY X. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. METHODOLIGICAL SUMMARY

The 2003 IFES survey in Armenia was conducted between August 30 and September 9, 2003. In total, 1,652 respondents were interviewed for the survey. Of these interviews, 1000 interviews comprised the national sample proportional by the population distribution in each Marz as well as the rural/urban split in each Marz. An additional 652 over-sample interviews were conducted in select locations in Armenia in which IFES has implements its civic education programming. The 1,652 responses were weighted according to Marz and rural/urban population breakdown for the national level analysis conducted in this report. A breakdown of national sample and over-sample interviews for each Marz is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample Description

National Sample Over-Sample Total Interviews

Aragatsotn 43 69 112 Ararat 77 - 77 Armavir 76 60 136 Gegharkunik 68 79 147 Lori 106 57 163 Kotayk 78 61 139 Shirak 98 57 155 Syunik 44 73 117 Vajots dzor 36 - 36 Tavush 44 - 44 Yerevan 330 195 525 TOTAL 1,000 652 1,652

The margin of error for a sample of n=1,652 at a 95% level of confi dence is plus or minus 2.4%.

In the achieved sample, 51% of interviewees were female and 49% were male. Given data on emigration of large numbers of Armenian males and based on estimates of male/female proportionality by other organizations, the fi nal sample was weighted to refl ect a male/ female distribution of 43/57.

The average time per interview was 28 minutes, with a minimum of 15 minutes and a maximum of 85 minutes. Response rate for the survey was 83%.

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 35 36 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

1. Please tell me how much information you have about the activities of your local government (LG – Mayor of city/ Mayor of village / Yerevan taghapet). Would you say you have a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or no information at all? (n = 1,650)

Gender

Male Female Total

A great deal 9.3% 3.9% 6.3% A fair amount 28.3% 23.1% 25.3% Not very much 33.8% 38.6% 36.6% None at all 27.6% 31.8% 30.0% Don’t know 1.0% 2.6% 1.9% No answer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2. From which sources do you get information about their activities, in general? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 1,123)

Gender Male Female Total Television 49.5% 48.9% 49.2% Radio 8.5% 7.6% 8.0% Newspapers 14.6% 14.0% 14.3% Public offi cials 9.3% 6.0% 7.5% NGOs 2.2% 2.0% 2.1% Relatives, friends 43.2% 43.4% 43.3% Other: Personal contacts 3.7% 3.4% 3.6% Other: Due to my job 2.4% 1.8% 2.1% Other: Meetings, public gatherings 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% Other: Conversations 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% Other: Offi cial bodies 1.2% 0.8% 1.0% I received no information about them 2.2% 1.8% 2.0% Don’t know 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% No Answer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 37 3. And how interested are you in the activities of your LG (LG – Mayor of city / Mayor of village / Yerevan taghapet)? Would you say you are very interested, somewhat interested, somewhat uninterested, or very uninterested? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very interested 11.5% 7.8% 9.4% Somewhat interested 29.9% 24.8% 27.0% Somewhat uninterested 32.3% 36.2% 34.5% Very uninterested 20.9% 24.7% 23.1% Don’t know 1.7% 3.2% 2.5% No answer 3.7% 3.2% 3.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4. Besides economic conditions, there are other important issues that local authorities in Armenia must address, then which issues do you feel are most important for your local government authorities to address? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Social issues 16.8% 20.8% 19.1% Community infrastructure improvements 35.4% 28.7% 31.6% Economic issues 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% Human and other rights issues 3.7% 3.0% 3.3% Realty (apartment), private land issues 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% Agricultural activities 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% Issues of sanitation and hygiene, ecological 3.1% 2.8% 3.0% issues Education, sport, cultural issues, youth and 22.6% 23.0% 22.8% leisure Health care system 2.8% 2.5% 2.6% Personal, family issues 1.3% 0.3% 0.7% Public utilities and services 21.4% 19.0% 20.0% Don’t know 3.0% 3.7% 3.4% No Answer 28.2% 26.5% 27.2%

5. Have you ever made efforts to address these issues to your local government authorities? (n = 1,201)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 29.2% 23.0% 25.6% No 63.0% 68.1% 65.9% No answer 7.8% 8.8% 8.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

38 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

6. What kind of actions have you taken? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 308)

Gender Male Female Total Wrote a petition 70.8% 79.1% 75.1% Applied orally 25.8% 16.9% 21.2% Through relatives and friends 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% No answer 3.6% 4.4% 4.0%

7. Why haven’t you participated in efforts to address these issues? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 791)

Gender Male Female Total Did not have a problem/ there was no need 19.8% 19.6% 19.7% It is senseless, will do no good 43.8% 39.2% 41.1% No one is interested with my opinion 7.2% 6.3% 6.7% We can solve these issues by our own 2.2% 1.9% 2.0% means Had no opportunity 9.2% 10.8% 10.2% Did not think about that/ Don’t know how to 3.0% 7.7% 5.8% apply It is their responsibility to fi nd out what 4.3% 3.7% 3.9% issues we have Don’t know 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% No answer 12.7% 14.2% 13.6%

8. How well informed are you about your community’s budget and how the funds are spent? Are you well informed, somewhat informed, not well informed, not at all informed? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Well informed 3.0% 1.9% 2.4% Somewhat informed 8.2% 4.8% 6.2% Not well informed 8.3% 5.8% 6.9% Not at all informed 75.4% 80.0% 78.0% Don’t know 4.8% 6.5% 5.8% No answer 0.4% 1.1% 0.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 39

9. From which sources do you get information about the budget? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 255)

Gender Male Female Total Television 18.1% 32.5% 24.7% Radio 2.2% 5.2% 3.5% Newspapers 7.2% 11.2% 9.1% Public offi cials 24.6% 18.8% 22.0% NGOs 2.2% 2.6% 2.4% Relatives, friends 41.7% 32.5% 37.5% Other: Personal contacts 8.6% 5.1% 7.0% Other: Due to my job 2.9% 0.9% 2.0% Other: Meetings, public gatherings 2.2% 0.9% 1.6% Other: Conversations 7.2% 1.7% 4.7% I received no information about them 3.6% 0.0% 2.0% Don’t know 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% No answer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10. In your opinion, who should decide how the LOCAL budget is used? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total President of the country 2.2% 2.6% 2.4% National Assembly 2.0% 2.7% 2.4% Minister of Finance 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% Local self-governing bodies (municipality, 35.3% 32.7% 33.8% leadership) Mayor, the village leader 24.3% 26.1% 25.3% Community 22.5% 17.0% 19.4% Other 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% Don’t know 9.1% 14.4% 12.1% No Answer 0.8% 1.2% 1.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11. -Can you tell me whether you have read or heard of these posters and publications?

11.A “Check the Voter List” posters (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Have read it 16.9% 8.7% 12.2% Have heard of it 12.6% 14.0% 13.4% Neither 64.0% 69.8% 67.3% Don’t know 6.5% 7.5% 7.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

40 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

11.B “Voters’ Q & A Guides” (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Have read it 12.5% 5.9% 8.7% Have heard of it 11.1% 12.3% 11.8% Neither 69.6% 73.6% 71.8% Don’t know 6.9% 8.3% 7.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

11.C The question and answer book on the LSG law (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Have read it 10.9% 4.5% 7.3% Have heard of it 9.0% 10.0% 9.6% Neither 71.2% 75.1% 73.4% Don’t know 8.8% 10.4% 9.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12. Please look at this list and tell me if you have taken part in these activities in the last year and how many cases can you remember, more than ten times, 6-10 times, 2-5 times, just once, or if you have not taken part at all?

12.A Discussed developments on the national scene with acquaintances (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More than 10 times 37.4% 26.8% 31.4% 6-10 times 12.0% 13.6% 12.9% 2-5 times 19.1% 18.2% 18.6% Once 8.0% 7.0% 7.5% Never 20.8% 31.1% 26.7% No answer 2.7% 3.2% 3.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12.B Discussed developments in your community with acquaintances (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More than 10 times 23.9% 13.9% 18.2% 6-10 times 11.5% 11.7% 11.6% 2-5 times 19.8% 17.7% 18.6% Once 9.0% 8.1% 8.5% Never 33.4% 45.5% 40.3% No answer 2.4% 3.1% 2.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 41 12.C Discussed state and/or local budgets with acquaintances (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More than 10 times 7.9% 5.0% 6.2% 6-10 times 5.6% 3.0% 4.1% 2-5 times 11.5% 8.2% 9.6% Once 7.4% 5.8% 6.5% Never 64.5% 74.2% 70.0% No answer 3.1% 3.8% 3.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12.D Signed a petition (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More than 10 times 2.4% 1.7% 2.0% 6-10 times 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 2-5 times 5.0% 4.3% 4.6% Once 10.2% 9.5% 9.8% Never 78.3% 80.1% 79.3% No answer 2.8% 3.1% 3.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12.E Attended condominium association meeting (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More then 10 times 2.8% 2.2% 2.5% 6-10 times 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 2-5 times 5.3% 2.2% 3.6% Once 5.2% 3.6% 4.3% Never 81.6% 86.7% 84.5% No answer 3.8% 4.6% 4.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

12.F Attended community council meeting (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total More than 10 times 2.7% 1.7% 2.1% 6-10 times 1.3% 0.3% 0.7% 2-5 times 3.1% 1.7% 2.3% Once 3.8% 2.6% 3.1% Never 86.2% 89.9% 88.3% No answer 3.0% 3.8% 3.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

42 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

During the past year have you ever been part of a group organized to discuss issues of 13. importance for your community or the nation? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 6.9% 4.7% 5.6% No 91.7% 93.5% 92.7% Don’t know 0.4% 0.7% 0.6% No answer 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Which organization has formed this group? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; 14. n = 93)

Gender Male Female Total Local governing and other offi cial bodies 14.0% 10.9% 12.5% Political parties 10.3% 9.3% 9.8% Local NGOs 3.2% 6.4% 4.7% International organizations 3.0% 8.4% 5.6% Don’t know 2.7% 1.3% 2.0% No answer 66.8% 63.6% 65.3%

15. Can you please tell me if the following positions are elected or appointed?

15.A Mayor (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Elected* 87.9% 83.7% 85.5% Appointed 8.8% 11.6% 10.4% Don’t know 2.9% 3.9% 3.5% No answer 0.3% 0.7% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Correct response

15.B Marzpet (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Elected 11.0% 20.3% 16.2% Appointed* 79.5% 66.2% 71.9% Don’t know 9.3% 12.7% 11.2% No answer 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Correct response

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 43 16. If you had a serious problem, which of these, if any, would you fi rst try to contact regarding this?

Gender Elected Offi cials (n = 1,650) Male Female Total Community Council 5.3% 3.1% 4.1% Community Leader / Mayor 35.8% 39.0% 37.6% Parliament Member 10.1% 7.8% 8.8% The President 6.7% 6.2% 6.4% Other elected offi cials 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% Nobody 39.6% 41.7% 40.8% No answer 0.7% 1.3% 1.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Gender Appointed Offi cials (n = 1,650) Male Female Total Marzpet 22.2% 23.2% 22.8% The Prime Minister 6.7% 4.3% 5.3% Other Ministers 6.3% 7.1% 6.8% Other appointed offi cials 1.7% 1.1% 1.3% Nobody 58.9% 59.7% 59.4% No answer 4.2% 4.6% 4.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

17. Why would you contact this offi cial fi rst? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed)

Gender Elected Offi cials (n = 960) Male Female Total That offi cial is responsible for that issue 15.0% 15.5% 15.3% The offi cial has high personal, moral 2.3% 4.1% 3.3% characteristics The offi cial is accessible 10.2% 10.4% 10.3% The offi cial has power to address the 8.8% 10.4% 9.7% problem Trust in that offi cial, he works well 17.7% 18.4% 18.1% The offi cial is well informed 5.3% 3.1% 4.1% Personal connections 10.3% 8.6% 9.3% Scaling, I’ll begin from lower and go to 5.6% 4.4% 4.9% upper instance The offi cial is highly respected among 9.5% 10.2% 9.9% people (popular) The offi cial is the one I have elected 12.5% 9.7% 10.9% Don’t know 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% No answer 9.2% 11.5% 10.5%

Gender Appointed Offi cials (n = 598) Male Female Total That offi cial is responsible for that issue 18.7% 20.4% 19.6% The offi cial has high personal, moral 2.8% 2.2% 2.5% characteristics The offi cial is accessible 9.2% 11.4% 10.5% The offi cial has power to address the 19.1% 17.0% 17.9% problem Trust in that offi cial, he works well 13.6% 15.3% 14.5% The offi cial is well informed 5.6% 4.1% 4.7% Personal connections 7.9% 7.1% 7.4% Scaling, I’ll begin from lower and go to 10.4% 9.0% 9.6% upper instance The offi cial is highly respected among 3.8% 6.2% 5.1% people (popular) Don’t know 2.3% 2.6% 2.5% No answer 11.4% 10.2% 10.7%

44 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

18. Have you ever contacted any elected offi cial before to help solve a problem? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 25.1% 22.2% 23.5% No 71.2% 75.2% 73.5% No answer 3.6% 2.6% 3.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

19. Why haven’t you ever contacted an elected offi cial before? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 1,213)

Gender Male Female Total Did not have a problem / there was no need 35.1% 37.7% 36.6% It was not important enough 13.6% 11.6% 12.5% Did not think of this 5.9% 8.5% 7.4% Did not know how to 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% Too busy / too diffi cult 0.6% 1.0% 0.8% It would have done no good 40.1% 36.0% 37.7% I try to solve my problems myself 2.3% 0.7% 1.4% Other 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% Don’t know 1.2% 2.6% 2.0% No answer 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

20. What level of elected offi cial did you contact? (n = 386)

Gender Male Female Total Community council Member 6.7% 3.4% 4.9% Community Leader / Mayor 69.8% 78.7% 74.6% Parliament Member 17.9% 8.7% 13.0% The President 3.4% 2.4% 2.8% Other elected offi cials 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% Not an elected offi cial 0.6% 4.8% 2.8% No Answer 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21. Did this elected offi cial respond to you? (n = 378)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 87.1% 77.0% 81.7% No 12.9% 22.0% 17.7% No answer 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 45 22. How satisfi ed were you with the response of the elected offi cial? Were you very satisfi ed, somewhat satisfi ed, somewhat dissatisfi ed, not at all satisfi ed? (n = 308)

Gender Male Female Total Very satisfi ed 47.1% 45.8% 46.4% Somewhat satisfi ed 25.2% 22.2% 23.7% Somewhat dissatisfi ed 5.2% 2.6% 3.9% Very dissatisfi ed 22.6% 28.8% 25.6% No answer 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

23. What issue or problem did you contact this elected offi cial about? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 377)

Gender Male Female Total Personal, family issues 14.2% 7.4% 10.6% Employment, salary 10.3% 12.0% 11.2% Social welfare, culture and education 23.3% 32.1% 27.9% Public utilities and services 22.6% 21.4% 22.0% Realty (apartment), private land issues 21.1% 20.2% 20.6% Community infrastructure improvements 10.1% 7.3% 8.6% Don’t know 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% No answer 6.7% 6.4% 6.5%

24. Have you ever contacted an appointed offi cial before to help solve a problem? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 11.4% 8.1% 9.5% No 85.0% 88.3% 86.8% No answer 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

25. Why haven’t you ever contacted an appointed offi cial before? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 1,432)

Gender Male Female Total Did not have a problem / there was no need 41.0% 40.2% 40.6% It was not important enough 10.3% 7.6% 8.7% Did not think of this 5.5% 5.9% 5.7% Did not know how to 2.6% 4.0% 3.4% Too busy/ too diffi cult 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% It would have done no good 37.9% 38.8% 38.4% Other: I try to solve problems myself 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% Don’t know 1.0% 1.7% 1.4% No answer 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%

46 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

26. What level of appointed offi cial did you contact? (n = 159)

Gender Male Female Total Marzpet/ Yerevan Mayor 35.4% 39.0% 37.1% Prime Minister 6.1% 3.9% 5.0% Other ministers 31.7% 27.3% 29.6% Department chiefs of various level 14.6% 10.4% 12.6% Assistants of appointed offi cials 6.1% 6.5% 6.3% Offi cials involved in juridical system 1.2% 5.2% 3.1% Not an appointed offi cial 2.4% 0.0% 1.3% No Answer 2.4% 7.8% 5.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

27. Did this appointed offi cial respond to you? (n = 155)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 83.5% 69.7% 76.8% No 13.9% 27.6% 20.6% No answer 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

28. How satisfi ed were you with the response of the appointed offi cial? Were you very satisfi ed, somewhat satisfi ed, somewhat dissatisfi ed, not at all satisfi ed? (n = 120)

Gender Male Female Total Very satisfi ed 40.9% 38.9% 40.0% Somewhat satisfi ed 24.2% 27.8% 25.8% Somewhat dissatisfi ed 1.5% 1.9% 1.7% Very dissatisfi ed 31.8% 31.5% 31.7% No answer 1.5% 0.0% 0.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

29. What issue or problem did you contact this appointed offi cial about? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 156)

Gender Male Female Total Personal, family issues 11.0% 11.4% 11.2% Employment, salary 15.2% 18.0% 16.5% Social welfare, culture and education 26.9% 38.2% 32.4% Public utilities and services 18.8% 9.2% 14.1% Realty (apartment), private land issues 9.8% 12.1% 10.9% Community infrastructure improvements 10.0% 7.1% 8.6% No answer 14.1% 6.4% 10.3%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 47 30. Can you tell me the names of the following public offi cials?

30.A Mayor of city / Mayor of village / Yerevan taghapet (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 86.8% 83.7% 85.0% Incorrect 2.1% 2.5% 2.3% Don’t know 9.3% 11.4% 10.5% No answer 1.8% 2.5% 2.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30.B Marzpet / Yerevan Mayor (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 55.5% 44.5% 49.2% Incorrect 4.3% 2.8% 3.5% Don’t know 34.6% 46.3% 41.2% No answer 5.5% 6.5% 6.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30.C Your representative to the National Assembly (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 69.8% 62.5% 65.7% Incorrect 3.9% 3.2% 3.5% Don’t know 22.1% 29.3% 26.2% No answer 4.2% 4.9% 4.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

31. How often do you watch media coverage of the National Assembly on television? Do you watch this once a week, twice a week, more than twice a week, occasionally, or very seldom? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Once a week 9.1% 6.0% 7.3% Twice a week 4.6% 4.8% 4.7% More than twice a week 14.2% 10.2% 12.0% Occasionally 29.1% 25.4% 27.0% Very seldom 18.3% 21.7% 20.2% Never 23.1% 30.8% 27.5% Don’t know 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% No answer 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

48 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

32. Here is a list of some ways that offi cials can ask your opinion on issues or about problems that concern you. Which of these have happened to you? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Government offi cials sent or gave me a 4.5% 5.3% 5.0% questionnaire to complete I was asked to attend a public hearing 6.7% 5.8% 6.2% I was asked to participate in an advisory 5.0% 3.6% 4.2% group Government offi cials have never asked me 62.4% 62.8% 62.6% my opinion

33-38. Here is a list showing several problems that you may wish to contact government offi cials about. For each, please tell me which body or offi cial should be contacted regarding this problem.

33. Fixing holes in the street close to your house (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 78.4% 76.6% 77.3% Incorrect 8.6% 8.5% 8.5% Don’t know 2.0% 4.0% 3.1% No Answer 11.1% 10.9% 11.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

34. The collection of trash (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 60.4% 55.2% 57.5% Incorrect 20.2% 22.2% 21.3% Don’t know 3.9% 4.6% 4.3% No answer 15.4% 18.0% 16.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35. Putting your name in the voters’ list (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 55.3% 48.2% 51.2% Incorrect 22.2% 24.3% 23.4% Don’t know 3.9% 5.0% 4.5% No answer 18.7% 22.5% 20.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 49 36. Drinking water in your home (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 52.8% 51.5% 52.1% Incorrect 31.3% 32.8% 32.2% Don’t know 1.8% 2.8% 2.4% No answer 14.0% 12.9% 13.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

37. Telephone service (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 65.1% 63.2% 64.0% Incorrect 18.8% 19.3% 19.1% Don’t know 2.5% 3.2% 2.9% No answer 13.6% 14.3% 14.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

38. Fixing holes on the highway (Open-ended; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Correct 3.6% 3.3% 3.5% Incorrect 68.2% 67.6% 67.8% Don’t know 4.9% 8.1% 6.7% No answer 23.3% 21.0% 22.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

39. How do you think Armenian media portrays women today in Armenian society? Does media portray women in a positive, negative or neutral manner? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Positive 44.2% 46.9% 45.8% Negative 11.9% 9.4% 10.5% Neutral 17.1% 19.1% 18.2% Other: Do not portray in any way 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Other: Portray not objectively 1.3% 0.4% 0.8% Don’t know 18.7% 19.4% 19.1% No answer 5.8% 3.7% 4.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

50 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

40. What do you mean by answer given in Q39? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 1,229)

Gender Male Female Total Portrayal of women’s role 32.1% 35.5% 34.0% Portrayal of women’s rights 7.9% 9.8% 9.0% Portrayal of women’s participation 13.7% 19.5% 17.0% Portrayal of personal characteristics 9.0% 8.2% 8.5% Contently correspondence/ non 15.6% 14.9% 15.2% correspondence of Mass Media Inadequate presentation of women 5.0% 1.7% 3.1% according to traditional values Don’t know 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% No answer 24.6% 19.3% 21.5%

41. How much do you agree or disagree with this statement: “A woman should not be involved in political events”? Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, not at all agree with this statement? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 14.8% 8.5% 11.2% Somewhat agree 13.5% 10.6% 11.9% Somewhat disagree 30.8% 30.2% 30.5% Strongly disagree 38.3% 46.9% 43.2% Don’t know 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% No answer 1.0% 1.6% 1.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

42. Women in Armenia are differently active in the following areas of social life. Please look at the list and tell me in which three areas you think it is most important for women to be involved? (No more than three responses allowed; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Social welfare 29.5% 29.2% 29.3% Health care system 60.3% 64.0% 62.4% Education 74.3% 74.5% 74.4% Family 81.5% 80.7% 81.0% Governance and decision-making at the 6.3% 6.5% 6.4% national level Governance and decision-making at the 4.4% 5.7% 5.1% local level Business life 3.6% 8.6% 6.5% Military 2.2% 4.2% 3.3% Other 1.0% 1.4% 1.2%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 51 43. As you may know, women are more than 50% of the total electorate in Armenia. However, there are very few women elected to political offi ces. I will now read you two statements. Please tell me which of these statements do you agree with most: (n = 1,650) C. We should set aside a certain number of seats in the National Assembly only for women, in order to ensure fair representation. D. Setting aside seats for women in the National Assembly is unnecessary, since women should compete with men for the same elected positions.

Gender Male Female Total Agree most with statement A 37.8% 50.4% 45.0% Agree most with statement B 46.5% 38.4% 41.9% Agree equality with both [Volunteered] 3.5% 2.3% 2.8% Disagree with both [Volunteered] 7.4% 2.2% 4.5% Don’t know 3.9% 5.7% 4.9% No answer 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

44. What percentage of seats do you think should be set aside for women? (n = 787)

Gender Male Female Total Less than 5% 10.2% 7.1% 8.3% 6% -10% 12.6% 9.9% 10.9% 11% -15% 8.8% 8.9% 8.9% 16% -20% 14.6% 13.8% 14.1% 21% -30% 25.5% 25.2% 25.3% More than 30% 24.5% 30.0% 28.0% Don’t know 3.7% 5.1% 4.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

45. How likely is it that you would vote for a woman political candidate, if she was as equally qualifi ed as the male candidate? Are you very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely, very likely? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very unlikely 14.0% 10.1% 11.8% Somewhat unlikely 12.8% 9.5% 10.9% Somewhat likely 35.9% 40.6% 38.5% Very likely 25.8% 34.6% 30.8% Don’t know 9.7% 4.6% 6.8% No answer 1.8% 0.6% 1.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

52 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

46. For what reasons would you not be likely to vote for an equally qualifi ed woman candidate? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 376)

Gender Male Female Total Initial affairs of women are in the family 18.9% 18.2% 18.5% Men are more appropriate 31.6% 42.3% 36.9% Women are not very talented to get 32.2% 27.2% 29.7% involved in politics No answer 20.0% 15.8% 17.9%

47. Now imagine you have a daughter. Would you encourage your daughter to run for political offi ce? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strong yes 19.2% 22.4% 21.0% Weak yes 12.8% 17.6% 15.5% Mixed support, depending on circumstances 17.7% 17.3% 17.4% Weak no 15.7% 16.4% 16.1% Strong no 31.4% 22.2% 26.2% Don’t know 2.9% 3.5% 3.3% No answer 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

48. In your opinion, is violence against women within the home a very common problem, somewhat common, not very common, or there is very little violence against women within the home? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very common problem 8.7% 12.8% 11.0% Somewhat common 17.6% 22.3% 20.2% Not very common 44.8% 39.4% 41.8% There is very little violence against women 22.3% 17.6% 19.6% within the home Don’t know 5.6% 7.0% 6.4% No answer 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 53 49. What do you think “domestic violence against women” means? What sort of action would fi t under domestic violence? (Open-ended; multiples responses allowed; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Moral violence, moral restrictions 27.8% 28.1% 28.0% Physical violence, including rape 47.6% 36.4% 41.2% Limiting of rights, neglecting of equality 27.2% 37.8% 33.2% Psychological pressure 14.2% 15.4% 14.9% Violence against will, submission 8.8% 10.2% 9.6% Exploitation 2.6% 2.2% 2.4% Banishing or leaving 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% Don’t know 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% No answer 14.1% 13.3% 13.6%

50. How much do you agree with the following statement: “Under the Soviet system, women had much more infl uence in the decision-making process of Armenia.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 19.1% 21.2% 20.3% Somewhat agree 13.3% 12.6% 12.9% Somewhat disagree 12.2% 12.5% 12.4% Strongly disagree 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% Don’t know 26.7% 26.5% 26.6% No answer 4.4% 2.9% 3.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

51. Why do you think so? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 1,153)

Gender Male Female Total Shift in social order 21.6% 11.5% 15.8% Shift in women’s rights and responsibilities 13.1% 17.0% 15.3% (freedom) Shift in traditions, moral criteria 9.4% 9.8% 9.6% Shift in the content of male-female 6.0% 4.8% 5.3% relationships (equality) Shift in socio-political role of women 27.1% 26.6% 26.8% Shift in women’s social participation level 10.4% 15.6% 13.4% and activities No changes have occurred 2.9% 2.5% 2.7% Personal impressions, memories 7.6% 9.2% 8.5% Don’t know 2.9% 3.7% 3.4% No answer 9.7% 10.7% 10.3%

54 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

Can you tell me which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) you know something 52. about? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Red Cross 5.2% 3.7% 4.3% Paros (State Benefi cial Program) 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% Shamiram (Political Party) 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% Women’s Committee 1.0% 2.3% 1.7% Armenian Youth Union 0.9% 0.3% 0.5% Disabled Union 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% Orinats Erkir (Political Party) 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% Baze (National Youth Program) 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% Erkrapah (War Volunteers’ Party) 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% Green’s Union (Political Party) 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% Woman’s Union 1.6% 3.4% 2.6% UNO 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% USAID 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% Armenian Relief Foundation 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% War Volunteers’ Organization 1.2% 0.4% 0.7% War Volunteers’ veterans and women’s 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% union (Political Party) Astghik 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% Parties 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% Dashnakcutjun (Political Party) 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% Azgajin Miabanutjun (Political Party) 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% Soros Foundation 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% IFES 1.0% 1.5% 1.3% Haj Arineri Miutjun (Political Party) 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% Other National NGOs 14.8% 9.6% 11.8% Other International NGOs 3.3% 2.0% 2.6% Undefi ned 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% Soldier’s Mother 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% Youth organization 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% Women’s organization 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% Eagles of Syunik 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% Lincy Foundation 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% Women’s Republican Council 0.7% 1.4% 1.1% Don’t know of any NGOs 44.8% 46.6% 45.8% Don’t know what an NGO is 22.6% 24.2% 23.5% No answer 4.3% 4.5% 4.4%

53. How did you fi nd out about these NGOs? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 433)

Gender Male Female Total Television 34.7% 38.3% 36.6% Other media sources (newspapers, radio) 22.6% 17.2% 19.7% Relatives, friends 28.8% 32.5% 30.8% Participation 6.0% 6.5% 6.3% As a result of their activities 10.2% 8.9% 9.5% Cooperation, business contacts 24.2% 18.8% 21.3% No answer 4.0% 3.6% 3.8%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 55 54. Have you ever done any voluntary, unpaid work for any NGO? (n = 433)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 44.1% 30.7% 37.0% No 55.0% 67.1% 61.4% Don’t know 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% No answer 0.5% 1.3% 0.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

55. Have you ever approached any NGO to help solve a problem that you had? (n = 433)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 22.8% 20.8% 21.7% No 76.2% 77.9% 77.1% Don’t know 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% No answer 1.0% 0.4% 0.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56. How necessary are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Armenia? Do you think they are essential, very necessary, not very necessary, not at all necessary? (n = 1,189)

Gender Male Female Total Essential 17.3% 14.5% 15.7% Very necessary 40.2% 45.4% 43.1% Not very necessary 20.0% 17.8% 18.8% Not at all necessary 6.0% 5.4% 5.6% Don’t know 12.7% 12.3% 12.4% No answer 3.8% 4.6% 4.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

57-63. Listed below are different groups of people. For each one, please tell me whether you completely trust them, somewhat trust them, somewhat distrust them, or completely distrust them?

57. Your neighbors (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 22.2% 20.3% 21.1% Somewhat trust 53.9% 55.2% 54.7% Somewhat distrust 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% Completely distrust 6.0% 8.4% 7.4% Don’t know 2.2% 1.0% 1.5% No answer 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

56 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

58. Your relatives (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 31.8% 29.9% 30.8% Somewhat trust 54.3% 56.7% 55.6% Somewhat distrust 8.8% 7.0% 7.8% Completely distrust 3.8% 5.1% 4.5% Don’t know 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% No answer 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

59. Your coworkers (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 17.0% 13.1% 14.8% Somewhat trust 52.9% 44.1% 47.9% Somewhat distrust 15.4% 15.5% 15.5% Completely distrust 6.5% 6.1% 6.2% Don’t know 6.0% 14.5% 10.8% No answer 2.1% 6.6% 4.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

60. Residents of other regions (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 3.7% 3.3% 3.5% Somewhat trust 27.3% 24.8% 25.9% Somewhat distrust 28.0% 24.4% 26.0% Completely distrust 16.5% 18.9% 17.8% Don’t know 21.8% 24.2% 23.2% No answer 2.8% 4.4% 3.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

61. Your community leaders (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 8.0% 8.3% 8.2% Somewhat trust 30.9% 25.9% 28.1% Somewhat distrust 26.0% 25.9% 25.9% Completely distrust 28.1% 31.8% 30.2% Don’t know 5.1% 7.1% 6.2% No answer 2.0% 1.0% 1.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 57 62. The National Assembly Deputies (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 4.8% 3.4% 4.0% Somewhat trust 18.7% 16.0% 17.2% Somewhat distrust 31.6% 29.7% 30.5% Completely distrust 37.8% 42.2% 40.3% Don’t know 5.2% 7.6% 6.5% No answer 2.0% 1.1% 1.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

63. The President (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely trust 10.5% 8.3% 9.3% Somewhat trust 24.5% 27.1% 26.0% Somewhat distrust 23.3% 22.9% 23.1% Completely distrust 35.3% 36.5% 36.0% Don’t know 3.8% 4.1% 3.9% No answer 2.5% 1.2% 1.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64. How interested are you in matters of politics and government in Armenia? Are you very interested, somewhat interested, not too interested, or not at all interested? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very interested 24.6% 19.7% 21.8% Somewhat interested 30.5% 27.6% 28.8% Not too interested 34.4% 37.2% 36.0% Not at all interested 9.6% 14.4% 12.3% Don’t know 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% No answer 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Overall, how satisfi ed are you with the job that city/village Municipality/ Yerevan 65. taghapetaran is doing? Would you say that you are very satisfi ed, somewhat satisfi ed, somewhat unsatisfi ed, or very unsatisfi ed? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very satisfi ed 6.7% 5.9% 6.2% Somewhat satisfi ed 27.7% 22.9% 25.0% Somewhat dissatisfi ed 34.8% 36.6% 35.8% Very dissatisfi ed 23.5% 22.9% 23.2% Don’t know 5.5% 9.4% 7.7% No answer 1.8% 2.2% 2.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

58 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

66. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement.

Voting gives people like me a chance to infl uence decision-making in Armenia. 66.A (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 11.2% 7.4% 9.0% Somewhat agree 22.1% 23.3% 22.8% Somewhat disagree 26.5% 27.8% 27.3% Strongly disagree 33.4% 29.2% 31.0% Don’t know 4.2% 9.2% 7.0% No answer 2.5% 3.1% 2.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B. People like me have little or no infl uence on the way things are run in Armenia. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 28.7% 31.6% 30.3% Somewhat agree 33.0% 29.8% 31.2% Somewhat disagree 8.1% 6.9% 7.5% Strongly disagree 22.2% 19.9% 20.9% Don’t know 4.9% 8.4% 6.9% No answer 3.1% 3.3% 3.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

C. I trust the justice system to protect me from unjust treatment of the state. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 4.8% 3.0% 3.8% Somewhat agree 15.9% 15.5% 15.6% Somewhat disagree 38.6% 38.8% 38.7% Strongly disagree 30.8% 27.2% 28.7% Don’t know 6.7% 11.8% 9.6% No answer 3.2% 3.7% 3.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

D. If I were wrongly accused of a crime, I am sure our judicial system would acquit me. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 8.7% 5.0% 6.6% Somewhat agree 13.9% 15.7% 14.9% Somewhat disagree 34.7% 35.4% 35.1% Strongly disagree 30.8% 26.0% 28.1% Don’t know 8.8% 14.0% 11.8% No answer 3.1% 3.9% 3.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 59 E. It is important that judges be independent of political pressure when making decisions on cases. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 61.2% 60.6% 60.8% Somewhat agree 19.2% 18.2% 18.7% Somewhat disagree 4.3% 2.6% 3.3% Strongly disagree 5.3% 4.4% 4.8% Don’t know 6.7% 11.1% 9.2% No answer 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

F. The Armenian judiciary is not infl uenced by political leaders when making decisions. (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Strongly agree 6.5% 9.1% 7.9% Somewhat agree 11.6% 9.4% 10.4% Somewhat disagree 40.0% 36.9% 38.2% Strongly disagree 24.3% 21.9% 22.9% Don’t know 12.3% 17.9% 15.5% No answer 5.3% 4.9% 5.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

67. Other than voting, in what ways can citizens attempt to infl uence the actions of government offi cials? (Multiple responses allowed; n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Public complaints 21.0% 19.9% 20.4% Demonstrations 32.0% 28.1% 29.8% Press or media 8.1% 9.0% 8.6% Becoming a member of a political party 2.8% 1.5% 2.1% Meeting with an offi cial 5.3% 6.9% 6.2% Joining an NGO 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% Letter to an offi cial 2.8% 6.0% 4.6% Rebellion 6.5% 3.9% 5.0% Bribes 9.1% 7.1% 8.0% There is no way 32.3% 34.3% 33.5% Other: Terrorism, revolution 10.4% 4.9% 7.3% Don’t know 5.2% 5.5% 5.4%

60 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

68. In your opinion, how serious is the problem of offi cial corruption in Armenia? Is it very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not serious at all? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Very serious 73.2% 68.7% 70.6% Somewhat serious 14.2% 17.0% 15.8% Not too serious 5.1% 5.9% 5.5% Not serious at all 2.4% 1.5% 1.9% No offi cial corruption in Armenia 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% [Volunteered] Don’t know 3.9% 6.4% 5.3% No answer 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

69. Do you think that citizens of Armenia accept corruption as a fact of life? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 81.3% 80.9% 81.1% No 10.3% 7.2% 8.5% Don’t know 6.9% 10.7% 9.0% No answer 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

70-73 Please tell me if you voted or did not vote in these elections.

70.A 2002 October, Local Elections in your community (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Voted 81.1% 77.2% 78.9% Did not vote 17.5% 20.6% 19.3% Local elections not held in community 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% [Volunteered] No answer 1.1% 1.9% 1.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

70.B Why not? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 316)

Gender Male Female Total I do not trust, the elections are not fair 13.8% 17.1% 15.8% No opportunity (because of circumstances) 36.6% 40.9% 39.2% My vote has no importance 9.8% 6.7% 7.9% There was not the candidate I wished to see 1.6% 2.6% 2.2% I am not interested, don’t remember 22.0% 18.1% 19.6% Had problems in the election area 0.0% 2.1% 1.3% Had no information about election process 4.1% 5.2% 4.7% Don’t know 3.3% 1.0% 1.9% No answer 8.9% 6.2% 7.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 61 71.A 2003 May, Parliamentary election (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Voted 84.9% 79.0% 81.5% Did not vote 15.0% 20.7% 18.2% No answer 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

71.B Why not? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 303)

Gender Male Female Total I do not trust, the elections are not fair 18.5% 24.1% 22.1% No opportunity (because of circumstances) 32.4% 34.4% 33.7% My vote has no importance 6.5% 6.2% 6.3% There was not the candidate I wished to see 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% I am not interested, don’t remember 22.2% 20.0% 20.8% Had problems in the election area 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% Had no information about the election 3.7% 1.0% 2.0% process Don’t know 0.0% 2.1% 1.3% No answer 14.8% 9.7% 11.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

72.A 2003 February, First round of presidential election (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Voted 91.0% 86.5% 88.4% Did not vote 9.0% 13.2% 11.4% No answer 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

72.B Why not? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 188)

Gender Male Female Total I do not trust, the elections are not fair 16.9% 22.0% 20.2% No opportunity (because of circumstances) 29.2% 32.5% 31.4% My vote has no importance 7.7% 6.5% 6.9% There was not the candidate I wished to see 3.1% 0.8% 1.6% I am not interested, don’t remember 23.1% 22.0% 22.3% Had problems in the election area 3.1% 1.6% 2.1% Had no information about election process 3.1% 0.8% 1.6% Don’t know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No answer 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

62 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

73.A 2003 March, Second round of presidential election (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Voted 88.3% 84.3% 86.1% Did not vote 11.5% 15.5% 13.8% No answer 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

73.B Why not? (Open-ended; multiple responses allowed; n = 226)

Gender Male Female Total I do not trust, the elections are not fair 20.7% 29.9% 26.5% No opportunity (because of circumstances) 28.0% 35.4% 32.7% My vote has no importance 8.5% 6.9% 7.5% There was not the candidate I wished to see 4.9% 1.4% 2.7% I am not interested, don’t remember 20.7% 17.4% 18.6% Had problems in the election area 1.2% 0.7% 0.9% Had no information about election process 2.4% 0.7% 1.3% Don’t know 0.0% 1.4% 0.9% No answer 13.4% 6.3% 8.8%

74. Did you check your name on the voter list before the election-day of fi rst round of presidential election? If Yes, was your name listed on the voter list? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Checked, name was there 58.8% 51.2% 54.5% Checked, name was not there 2.0% 3.5% 2.9% Did not check 36.2% 40.8% 38.8% No answer 2.9% 4.5% 3.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

75. If voted in fi rst round of presidential election, was your name listed on the voters list on election day? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Yes 90.0% 87.3% 88.5% No 3.1% 1.4% 2.1% No answer 6.9% 11.3% 9.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 63 76. If voted in fi rst round of presidential election, how well informed did you feel about the voting process? Did you feel that you were fully informed about the voting process, somewhat informed, not very informed, or not at all informed? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Fully informed 31.7% 26.2% 28.6% Somewhat informed 37.2% 35.0% 35.9% Not very informed 16.8% 21.5% 19.5% Not at all informed 4.2% 5.3% 4.8% Don’t know 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% No answer 7.2% 9.2% 8.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

77. On this card are listed several institutions. Please tell me which of these has been most effective in informing the voters about the electoral process of 2002-2003? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total The government 20.6% 21.4% 21.1% Armenian NGOs 3.8% 4.1% 3.9% International NGOs 5.5% 4.1% 4.7% Political parties 38.6% 36.2% 37.3% Mass media 2.9% 2.5% 2.7% Other: Personal contacts 2.1% 1.8% 1.9% Other: Various meetings 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% Other: None 7.9% 8.4% 8.2% Don’t know 14.2% 17.9% 16.3% No answer 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

78. What do you think, the 2003 parliamentary elections in Armenia were fair or not? Do you think that these elections were completely fair, somewhat fair, not very fair, or not fair at all? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely fair 3.8% 3.3% 3.5% Somewhat fair 12.6% 15.0% 14.0% Not very fair 26.5% 26.2% 26.3% Not fair at all 50.2% 47.2% 48.5% Don’t know 6.5% 6.8% 6.7% No answer 0.4% 1.5% 1.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 2. TOPLINE DATA

79. What about the 2003 presidential elections? Do you think that these elections were completely fair, somewhat fair, not very fair, or not fair at all? (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely fair 5.5% 5.0% 5.2% Somewhat fair 13.6% 16.2% 15.1% Not very fair 21.5% 22.4% 22.0% Not fair at all 54.2% 50.1% 51.9% Don’t know 4.9% 5.3% 5.2% No answer 0.3% 1.0% 0.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

80. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections show that Armenia is progressing toward adopting the practices of a fully democratic state.” (n = 1,650)

Gender Male Female Total Completely agree 7.0% 4.6% 5.6% Somewhat agree 20.3% 23.2% 22.0% Somewhat disagree 19.8% 20.9% 20.4% Completely disagree 42.9% 36.1% 39.1% Don’t know 8.7% 12.7% 11.0% No answer 1.3% 2.5% 1.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 65

APPENDIX 3. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA APPENDIX 3. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

1. Gender (n = 1,650)

Total Male 43.2% Female 56.8% Total 100.0%

2. Age (Open-ended; n = 1,636)

Gender Male Female Total 18-25 13.3% 13.3% 13.1% 26-35 18.6% 15.9% 17.1% 36-45 19.9% 23.8% 22.1% 46-55 24.4% 22.3% 23.2% 56-65 14.1% 14.3% 14.2% 66+ 9.7% 10.4% 10.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3. Education (n = 1,630)

Gender Male Female Total Elementary 1.6% 1.1% 1.3% Incomplete high school 3.1% 2.2% 2.6% High school 39.1% 40.0% 39.6% Secondary professional school 20.7% 22.5% 21.7% Incomplete university 3.0% 4.2% 3.7% University education 32.5% 30.1% 31.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4. What is your marital status? (n = 1,612)

Gender Male Female Total Singe 17.7% 14.8% 16.1% Married 79.1% 68.2% 72.9% Divorced 1.6% 4.0% 3.0% Widow/widower 1.6% 13.0% 8.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 67 5. What is your current employment status? (n = 1,642 )

Gender Male Female Total Work full time at one job 38.0% 23.4% 29.7% Work full time at more than one job 2.7% 1.2% 1.8% Work part time at one job 27.2% 9.5% 8.5% Work party time at more than one job 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% Farmer/Fisherman 6.1% 0.7% 3.0% Unemployed 26.3% 18.3% 21.7% Retired/Pensioner 14.1% 18.8% 16.8% Student 3.8% 4.3% 4.1% Housewife 0.0% 23.0% 13.2% Other 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

6. What is or was your occupation? (n = 1,366)

Gender Male Female Total Worker 13.3% 10.1% 11.7% Civil Servant 21.2% 14.1% 17.6% Professionals (doctors, teachers, etc.) 15.4% 37.0% 26.2% R&D employee (scientists, researchers, etc.) 0.9% 1.8% 1.3% Businessman 8.2% 2.2% 5.2% Military servant 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% Farmer/Fisherman 11.4% 8.5% 8.5% Other 16.0% 13.0% 14.5% No answer 4.0% 5.9% 4.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7. Which number best describes the current fi nancial situation of you and your family living there with you? (n = 1,619)

Gender Male Female Total Very poor: we do not have enough money 10.1 13.1 11.8 for our most basic needs Poor: we barely have enough money to 28.6 28.0 28.2 buy food, we rarely buy clothes Modest: we have enough to eat, we 40.2 38.7 39.3 occasionally buy clothes, but we have nothing left over to save. Moderate: we have some savings 19.2 17.9 18.5 Above average: we have savings, and can 2.0 2.3 2.2 afford a lot No answer 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

68 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 4. IFES ACTIVITIES IN ARMENIA APPENDIX 4. IFES ACTIVITIES IN ARMENIA

IFES-Armenia Vision Statement IFES in Armenia is committed to the success of a vibrant and effective civil society. IFES believes that fair and free elections, good governance, rule of law and civic awareness and participation are necessary components of a fl ourishing, stable and prosperous democracy.

IFES-Armenia Mission Statement IFES in Armenia provides nonpartisan, locally defi ned, technical assistance and information to the Armenian population and institutions for the development of civil society and democracy.

Overview From 1996 to 2000, IFES provided technical election assistance, which included voter education, election monitoring, guidebooks on election administration, and legal support for the electoral code. Since 2000, IFES has been implementing a major democracy and social reform project to empower the citizens of Armenia. The current four-year, $4.2 million project, funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID), promotes a more informed and dynamic civil society. By expanding the capacity of grassroots communities to communicate with their elected representatives, the project aims to bring about a more transparent, responsive and democratic government.

Direct Citizen Engagement With the intent of building a well-informed and pro-active citizenry, particularly in rural areas where information may be limited, IFES directly engages citizens throughout Armenia. IFES has hired and trained a core group of civic educators who facilitate community-based citizen Dialogue Groups (DGs) and Initiative Groups (IGs). By leading discussions and providing informational materials on national and community- specifi c government structures, activities, and issues, IFES channels citizens’ public concerns into advocacy and community involvement. In addition, IFES fosters active linkages among communities through regional, professional, and sectoral associations, NGOs, public offi cials, and mass media.

As of July 1, 2004, civic education instructors have conducted more than 4,300 meetings of DGs and IGs in 409 communities of Armenia. Of the 73,000 people who have participated, more than half are women. DG themes have featured legal education, community development, local self-governance, community schools, and water supply issues, and other topics. IGs have focused on issues including telephone connections, development of NGOs and condominiums, constitutional amendments, heating for a polyclinic, renovations of kindergartens, and establishment of community foundations and community schools. Other community initiatives have included 80,000 corrections of voter lists in 35 communities of Armenia by Voter Lists Advisory Committees (VLACs). In addition, over 2,899 community events over the last three years have been organized

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 69 during the annual nation-wide volunteer actions, “Days of Good Will, Good Deeds, Good Results,” with the participation of 288,528 citizens. Successful initiatives such as these give citizens the sense that by working together, they can affect real change in their community.

Partnership with the Center for Community Dialogues and Initiatives (CCDI) The IFES CAPA Network of civic educators and resource centers has developed into a sustainable CAPA Network embodied in a new indigenous civic education NGO: the Center for Community Dialogues and Initiatives (CCDI). The new network, CCDI, has assumed responsibility for IFES’ local staff, infrastructure, and communities where CAPA offi ces have worked over the last several years. Founded in December 2003, the mission and services of CCDI are grounded on the needs and interests of the communities that it serves and cover the four pillars of a healthy vibrant democracy – civil society, good governance, rule of law, and elections.

Information Resources and Public Outreach Information is essential to citizen empowerment. IFES produces a number of information products including: independent reports on community council meetings and town hall forums, citizen guides to the national and regional governments, public service announcements and documentaries, televised town hall meetings and candidate debates, and results of public opinion surveys. IFES also produces concept and issue-oriented leafl et series, which in the past has included question and answer guides on the local government, condominiums, the police, everyday legal issues, the presidency; voter education guides; and “How-to” manuals on conducting candidate debates and advocacy campaigns. IFES Armenia also maintains nine resource centers, which are open to the public. The resource centers are equipped with internet access and print, video and electronic materials covering the areas of civil society, elections, rule of law, and governance. IFES resources provide the information, skills, and tools for carrying out various civic initiatives and promote an overall well-informed population. They are open to the public every Wednesday from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm, also any day upon request.

Addressing Gender Issues through Local Education, Advocacy and Oversight IFES has established a partnership with the Women’s Republican Council (WRC), an Armenian non-governmental organization. Through collaborative efforts, the WRC works with IFES to encourage women to engage in public life and to advocate for issues. Joint IFES-WRC activities include an International Women’s Day Public Information Campaign, targeted polls, training for women candidates running for local and parliamentary elections, cooperation between NGOs and the media, election observations, publications and public service announcements.

In 2004, IFES and WRC are promoting activities that aim to improve the status of women in Armenia. Through in the development and public awareness of the National Plan of Action on Improvement of Women’s Status in the Republic of Armenia and Enhancement of their Role in the Society (NPA), IFES and WRC will work to address actions outlined in the NPA.

70 IFES SURVEY 2003 APPENDIX 4. IFES ACTIVITIES IN ARMENIA IFES – A World Wide Record of Implementing Civic Projects IFES is a non-partisan, nonprofi t organization founded in 1987 and is internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading providers of democracy, civil society and governance assistance.

IFES is dedicated to the success of democracy worldwide, the prospect that each person in every corner of the world is entitled to have a free and informed say in how he or she is governed, and that democratic governance is evolving and dynamic, created by and meeting the needs of the people that it serves.

IFES provides professional advice and technical assistance in the promotion of democracy worldwide and serves as a clearinghouse of information on governance, rule of law, civil society and election.

In addition to its current offi ce in Armenia that opened in 1996, IFES has fi eld offi ces in 25 countries and program experience in more than 120 countries worldwide. Civil society and civic education programs initiated by IFES have also operated in Bosnia, Georgia, Russia, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan and other countries.

“Citizens’ Awareness and Participation in Armenia” project is fi nanced by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement #111- A-00-00-00168-00.

CITIZENS’ AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION IN ARMENIA 71 IFES-ARMENIA

HEAD OFFICE

Alex Manukian 9, 5th Floor Yerevan 375070 Armenia Tel: (374-1) 51 20 51 Fax: (374-1) 51 20 15 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.ifes.am CENTER FOR COMMUNITY DIALOGUES AND INITIATIVES (CCDI)

HEAD OFFICE LORI REGION

Tumanyan 8, 3rd Floor G. Lusavorich 38/1, 2nd fl oor, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia, 375070 rooms 5 & 6, Vanadzor, RA. Tel: (3741) 58 42 79; Tel/Fax: (051) 4 29 68 E-mail: [email protected] Tel./Fax: (3741) 52 42 97

e-mail: [email protected] KOTAYK REGION Barekamutian Square 1, 2nd Floor, YEREVAN Abovyan, RA Tumanyan 8, 3rd Floor Tel: (022) 2 04 15; Fax: (022) 2 04 22 Tel: (3741) 52 77 39, 52 77 36 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] SHIRAK REGION ARAGATSOTN REGION Shirakatsi 68, 2nd fl oor, Aigestan 16, Ashtarak, RA room 25 Gyumri, RA Tel: (032) 3 62 76; Fax: (032) 3 43 77 Tel: (041) 3 97 56; Fax: (041) 2 41 02 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

ARMAVIR REGION SYUNIK REGION Kamoi 4, #1, Echmiadzin, RA Melik Stepanian 6, Kapan, RA Tel: (031) 5 69 43; Fax: (031) 4 69 33 Tel/Fax: (085) 6 32 20 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

GEGHARKUNIK REGION Gortsaranayin 4, #20, Sevan, RA Tel: (061) 2 07 66; Fax: (061) 2 11 56 E-mail: [email protected] PRINTED BY “GEVORG-HRAYR” Co. Ltd

Adress: Grigor Lusavorich 6 Tel.: (374 1) 52.79.74, (374 1) 52.79.47 E-mail: lusakn@rambler.ru